Karnataka High Court
Smt.Laxmi And Ors vs Sri.Mallaiah G. And Ors on 25 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7905
MFA No. 200461 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200461 OF 2020 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.LAXMI
W/O HANUMANTHA
AGE: 34 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O: PALAGALADINNI, ALKAVATAGI VILLAGE
TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR
PRESENTLY RESIDING
NEAR MAREMMA TEMPLE
RAMPUR ROAD, RAICHUR-585 401.
2. MANU D/O HANUMANTHA
AGE: 9 YEARS, MINOR
3. MONOSH D/O HANUMANTHA
AGE: 7 YEARS, MINOR
Digitally signed by
RENUKA 4. MANOJ S/O HANUMANTHA
Location: HIGH AGE: 5 YEARS, MINOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA APPELLANTS 2 & 4 ARE MINORS UNDER THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
APPELLANT NO.1.
R/O: PALAGALADINNI, ALKAVATAGI VILLAGE
TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR
PRESENTLY RESIDING
NEAR MAREMMA TEMPLE
RAMPUR ROAD, RAICHUR-585 401.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7905
MFA No. 200461 of 2020
AND:
1. SRI.MALLAIAH G.
S/O G. VENKATESHWARALU
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: DRIVER
R/O: H.NO. 12-67-1, BOYAPETA
BETHAMCHARLA, DIST: KARNOOL-518 599.
2. SRI. CHANDRUDU JOGI
S/O JOGI CHENNAVENKATANNA
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: BUSINESS & OWNER OF LORRY
NO. AP-21/X-6399,
R/O: DOOR NO. 1-58-K.K. KOTTALA VILLAGE
BUGGANAPALLI (P)
BETAMCHARLA MANDALAM
DIST: KARNOOL, (A.P)-518 599.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NEAR SURAKSHA HOSPITAL
RAICHUR, TQ: & DIST: RAICHUR-585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKINDI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH
V/O/D 07.01.2021)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO. 56/2018 ON THE FILE OF
THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT RAICHUR,
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 01.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 56/2018 BY
THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT RAICHUR AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION
FROM RS. 5,87,500/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO RS. 20,50,000/-
WITH 12% INTEREST AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7905
MFA No. 200461 of 2020
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned appeal is by the claimants who have
questioned 50% negligence attributed on the deceased
and have also questioned the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal in MVC.No.56/2018. The respondent
No.3/Insurance company acknowledges the liability and
therefore, the appeal is purely on quantum and
negligence.
2. The present appellants filed claim petition for
having lost one Hanumantha in a road traffic accident
dated 28.12.2017. The appellants claim that on
28.12.2017, Hanumantha who was proceeding towards
Honnalli Village met with a fatal accident as the driver of
the offending lorry had illegally parked the vehicle on the
middle of the road. The Tribunal by notionally assessing
the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- has awarded a
sum of Rs.10,80,000/- towards loss of dependency. In all,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7905
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,75,000/- and has
fastened 50% negligence on the deceased.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.3/Insurance company.
Findings on negligence:
4. The records in this case clearly indicate that the
driver of the offending lorry had stationed the vehicle
directly in the middle of the road. This act of parking on a
roadway without proper authorization or precautions
constitutes an instance of illegal parking, which raises
concerns of negligence on the driver's part. The issue of
liability in cases where a vehicle is illegally parked on a
public road, leading to accidents, has been addressed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Archit Saini and Another
vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others1. In
this landmark decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
AIR 2018 SC 1143
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7905
the full measure of negligence should be attributed to the
driver who irresponsibly left the vehicle on the road,
creating a hazardous situation. Such positioning of a
vehicle on the road without due regard for safety and
traffic flow breaches standard duty of care, thereby
implicating the driver in the resulting accident.
5. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that the
driver of the offending lorry had parked the vehicle on the
road itself, without proper safeguards or warnings for
other road users. Applying the principle enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Archit Saini and Another vs. The
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (supra), it
follows that the entirety of negligence must be assigned to
the lorry driver, who failed to adhere to safe parking
practices and, by doing so, put other road users at risk.
Consequently, the Tribunal's prior finding attributing
partial negligence to the deceased is set aside. The
responsibility for the accident is thereby fully fastened
upon the driver of the offending lorry, who is liable for the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7905
unsafe and illegal parking conduct that directly led to the
tragic outcome in this case.
Findings on quantum:
6. On reviewing the material on record, this Court
is of the view that appellants have failed to substantiate
the actual income of the deceased. In absence of income
proof, having regard to the fact that accident is of the year
2017, income of the deceased is notionally assessed at
Rs.10,250/- in terms of the chart prepared by the Legal
Services Authority. If 40% is added towards future
prospects, the income is assessed at Rs.14,350/-. Since
there are four dependents, 1/4th is deducted and the
income is assessed at Rs.10,763/-. By applying the
multiplier of 15, the compensation re-determined by this
Court under the head 'loss of dependency' works out to
Rs.19,37,340/- (10,763x12x15).
7. Under conventional heads, a sum of
Rs.1,90,000/- is awarded. The accident is of the year
2017 and therefore, a sum of Rs.38,000/- additional
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7905
amount at the rate of 10% for every three years is added
in terms of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs.
Pranay Sethi and Ors.2. The total compensation re-
determined by this Court works out to Rs.21,65,340/- as
against Rs.11,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) The judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal in MVC.No.56/2018 is modified;
(iii) The appellants are entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.9,90,340/- which shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization;
(iv) Since negligence is fastened on the
driver of the offending lorry, the entire
compensation shall be paid by the Insurance
company.
2017 ACJ 2700 SC
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7905
(v) The apportionment shall be made in
terms of the order of the Tribunal;
(vi) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
remitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
