Karnataka High Court
Smt Rajamma vs Sri Mohammed Ali on 4 September, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
MFA No. 204 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 205 of 2019
MFA No. 206 of 2019
AND 1 OTHER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 204 OF 2019 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 205 OF 2019 (MV)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2019 (MV)
MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 28 OF 2022 (MV)
IN MFA No. 204/2019
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
36B, 1ST FLOOR
MYSORE TRADE CENTER
OPP KSRTC BUS STAND
B.N.ROAD, MYSORE-570001
NOW REP BY ITS
Digitally signed by THE MANAGER
HEMALATHA A RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD,
Location: HIGH NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING
COURT OF 5TH FLOOR, M G ROAD
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KUMAR @ KUMARA
S/O HANUMAIAH @ HANUMANTHA BHOVI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/O HUILDORE KAVAL
HUILDORE POST
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
MFA No. 204 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 205 of 2019
MFA No. 206 of 2019
AND 1 OTHER
BUKKAPATNA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2. MOHAMMED ALI
S/O KAMAL PASHA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO 6/95, 2ND CROSS
GALIPURA ROAD, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571422.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.BHOJARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR R1:
SRI. N. GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.10.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.539/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.8,12,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT. THE
PETITIONER IS ALSO ENTITLED FOR A COMPENSATION OF
RS.30,000/- WITHOUT INTEREST.
IN MFA NO. 205/2019
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
36B, 1ST FLOOR, MYSORE TRADE CENTER
OPP KSRTC BUS STAND
B.N.ROAD, MYSORE-570001
NOW REP BY ITS THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING
5TH FLOOR, M.G.ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B.,ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
MFA No. 204 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 205 of 2019
MFA No. 206 of 2019
AND 1 OTHER
AND:
1. RAJAMMA
W/O LATE PRABHAKARA @ PRABHU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
2. DEVIKA
D/O LATE PRABHARAKA @ PRABHU
MINOR, AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS
REP THROUGH HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
RAJAMMA, THE 1ST RESPONDENT
BOTH ARE R/AT HUILDORE KAVAL, HILDORE POST
BUKKAPATTANA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR.
3. MOHAMMED ALI
S/O KAMAL PASHA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.6/95, 2ND CROSS
GALIPURA ROAD, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571442.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.BHOJARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2:
SRI. N. GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVCOATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.10.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.541/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.13,12,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6%
P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
IN MFA NO. 206/2019
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
36B, 1ST FLOOR
MYSORE TRADE CENTER
OPP KSRTC BUS STAND
B.N.ROAD, MYSORE-570001
NOW REP BY ITS MANAGER
RELINACE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
MFA No. 204 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 205 of 2019
MFA No. 206 of 2019
AND 1 OTHER
NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING
5TH FLOOR, M G ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JAYARAMU @ JAYANNA
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O HULIDORE KAVAL
HUILDORE POST, BUKKAPATNA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK.
2. MOHAMMED ALI
S/O KAMAL PASHA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.6/95, 2ND CROSS
GALIPURA ROAD, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571442
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BHOJARAJA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1:
SRI. N. GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.10.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.540/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
IN MFA.CROB NO. 28/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SMT RAJAMMA
W/O LATE PRABHAKAR @ PRABHU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
2. KUM DEVIKA
D/O LATE PRABHAKAR @ PRABHU
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
MFA No. 204 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 205 of 2019
MFA No. 206 of 2019
AND 1 OTHER
AGE ABOUT 05 YEARS
MINOR REP BY HER MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT RAJAMMA
BOTH ARE R/AT HULIDORE KAVAL HULIDORE POST
BUKKAPATANA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572135
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. BHOJARAJA., ADVOCATE )
AND:
1. SRI MOHAMMED ALI
S/O KAMAL PASHA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO 6/95 2ND CROSS
GALIPURA ROAD
CHAMARAJANAGARA -571313.
2. M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
NO 36-B 1ST FLOOR
MYSORE TRADE CENTER OPP KSRTC BUS STAND
B N ROAD, MYSORE - 570001
AND ALSO AT
NO 28 5TH FLOOR
EAST WING CENTENARY BUILDING
M G ROAD, BENGALURU - 56001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MISS SUSHMITHA G, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1:
SRI. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:05.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.541/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT,
SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
MFA No. 204 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 205 of 2019
MFA No. 206 of 2019
AND 1 OTHER
THESE APPEALS & CROSS OBJECTION COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
MFA Nos.204/2019, 205/2019 and 206/2019 are
filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short, 'the Act') being
aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 05.10.2018
passed in MVC Nos.539/2017, 540/2017 and 541/2017
and MFA Crob.No.28/2022 is filed by the claimants under
Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment
and award dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Senior Civil
Judge and Addl. MACT, Sira (for short, 'the Tribunal') in
MVC No.541/2017. Since the challenge is to the same
judgment, both the appeals and cross objection are
clubbed together, heard and common judgment is being
passed.
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals and
cross-objection briefly stated are that on 08.12.2016 at
about 1.35 p.m., when the claimants and the deceased
Prabhakara were proceeding from Sinduvalli village to
Nanjanagudu in the Bolero pickup vehicle bearing
registration No.KA-55/0269, when they came near Kalale
gate, at that time, the driver of the said vehicle drove the
same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner,
due to which, he dashed against a drainage, which was on
the left side of the road and the said vehicle toppled. As a
result of the aforesaid accident, the claimants sustained
grievous injuries and were hospitalized and Prabhakar
succumbed to the injuries.
3. The claimants filed petitions under Section 166 of
the Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that they
spent significant amount towards medical expenses,
conveyance charges and other related costs and for
funeral expenses. It was further pleaded that the accident
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of
the offending vehicle by its driver.
4. Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2
appeared through counsel and filed separate written
statements denying the averments made in the claim
petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded
the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove the case, in
all examined 5 witnesses as PW1 to PW5, and got
exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. On behalf
of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1
and got exhibited document namely Ex.R1. The Claims
Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that
the accident took place on account of rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of
which, the claimants sustained injuries and Prabhakar
died. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are
entitled to compensation of Rs.8,12,000/-, Rs.50,000/-
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
and Rs.13,12,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the
compensation amounts along with interest. Being
aggrieved, the present appeals and cross-objection have
been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company
raised the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, the claimants and the deceased Prabhakar
were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous
passengers. Since the offending vehicle is a goods
vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the
compensation.
(ii) Secondly, in the complaint, FIR it is not mentioned
that they are traveling along with the goods. There is no
pleading to that effect. The Tribunal, beyond the
pleadings, has held that the claimants are traveling along
with the goods and the Insurance Company is liable to pay
the compensation.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
(iii) Thirdly, Even assuming for the sake of
arguments that they are traveling along with the goods, as
per Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the owner of
the goods or one of his representative are entitled for
compensation. In the case on hand, there are three claim
petitions. Therefore, they are not entitled for the
compensation.
(iv) Fourthly, even under Rule 100 of the Karnataka
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in any other light transport
goods vehicle, three persons can travel if it is not plying
between two cities. Hence, Rule 100 is not applicable. In
support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this
Court in MFA No.9192/2018 & connected matters,
disposed of on 28.11.2022.
(v) Fifthly, in the complaint, it is specifically stated
that one Rohit was driving the vehicle and in the FIR also
it is registered that Rohit was the driver. For the first time,
in the charge sheet, it is mentioned that Kaisar Khan was
the driver of the offending vehicle. To make a false claim
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
they have implicated the driver. Even though the owner of
the offending vehicle has appeared and filed the written
statement but he has not entered the witness box or they
have not examined the investigating officer to prove that
Kaisar Khan was driving the vehicle. Therefore, the liability
fixed on the Insurance Company by the Tribunal is
contrary to the materials available on record.
Re.quantum in MFA Crob.No.28/2022 arising out of
MVC No.541/2016:
(vi) Considering the evidence of the parties and the
materials available on record, the overall compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence,
sought to allow the appeals filed by the Insurance
Company and to dismiss the cross-objection filed by the
claimants.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
claimants raised the following contentions:
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
(i) Firstly, the specific case of the claimants is that
they are all electrical cable line workers and they are
working on piece contract basis. All the three are traveling
along with the electric goods which belongs to them. Even
in the cross-examination, the Insurance Company has
suggested that they were traveling as passengers sitting
on the electric goods. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that
there was goods in the offending vehicle in which the
claimants and the deceased Prabhakar were traveling.
ii) Secondly, even though under Section 147 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, the owner of the goods or his
authorized representative is entitled for the compensation,
but under Rule 100 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules,
in respect of light transport vehicle, not more than three
persons are permitted to travel. Since there are three
claimants, they are entitled for compensation. In support
of his contention, he relied on the judgments of this Court
in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Vs. HUSENSAB GOUSUSAB TALIKOTI AND OTHERS
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
reported in 2001 ACJ 2008 and NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. ALIPEER AND
ANOTHER reported in ILR 2006 Kar. 947.
Re.quantum in MFA Crob.No.28/2022 arising out of
MVC No.541/2016:
iii) Thirdly, the claimants assert that the deceased was
approximately aged about 32 years at the time of the
accident and had a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- as an
agricultural labour. However, the assessment of income of
the deceased at Rs.9,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified
and erroneous.
iv) Fourthly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017
SC 5157], the claimants are entitled to addition of future
prospects.
v) Fifthly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra),
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of
estate' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'.
vi) Sixthly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ
2782], each of the claimants is entitled to compensation
of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection
and consortium'.
vii) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side.
8. The learned counsel for the owner of the offending
vehicle submitted that as per the charge sheet, Kaisar
Kjhan was driving the offending vehicle, he was holding a
valid and effective driving licence. The offending vehicle is
covered with valid insurance policy. Therefore, the
Tribunal has rightly held that the Insurance Company is
liable to pay the compensation.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal and the
original records.
10. The case of the claimants is that on 08.12.2016
at about 1.35 p.m., the claimants and the deceased
Prabhakara were proceeding from Sinduvalli village to
Nanjanagudu in the Bolero pickup vehicle bearing
registration No.KA-55/0269, when they came near Kalale
gate, at that time, the driver of the said vehicle drove the
same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner,
due to which, he dashed against a drainage, which was on
the left side of the road and the said vehicle toppled. As a
result of the aforesaid accident, the claimants sustained
grievous injuries and were hospitalized and Prabhakar
succumbed to the injuries. After recovering from the
injuries, they have filed the claim petitions. They have
taken a specific contention in the claim petition that, on
08.12.2016 at about 1.30 p.m. the aforesaid claimant and
other co-workers were coming towards Nanjanagudu for
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
electrical cable work along with electrical goods, after
completion of their work at Sinduvalli village, through
Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing registration No.KA-55/0269,
while they were so proceeding, near Kalale gate, at about
1.35 p.m., at that time the driver of the aforesaid vehicle
in which the said claimants were traveling had driven the
said vehicle by its driver with high speed in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the drainage which
is on the left side of the road, as a result of which the said
vehicle was capsized, as a result of accident, one of the
claimant got three fractures on his right leg, right hand
and sustained bleeding injuries on his head, and other
parts of the body and one of his co-worker by name
Prabhakara @ Prabha was died at the spot.
11. PW1 who is one of the claimant at para 3 of chief-
examination, has stated as follows:
"I submit that, myself and other co-
workers had been to Nanjanagudu for labour
work for digging the trench for installation of
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
the electrical pole in the middle portion on
Nanjanagudu highway road. Further I submit
that, on 08.12.2016 at about 1.30 p.m., myself
and other co-workers were coming towards
Nanjanagudu for electrical cable work along
with electrical goods after completion of our
work at Sinduvalli village through Bolero Pickup
vehicle bearing registration No.KA-55/0269,
while we were so proceeding near Kalale gate,
at about 1.35 p.m., at that time the driver of
the aforesaid vehicle in which myself and other
co-workers were traveling had driven the said
vehicle by its driver by name Kaiser Khan, Son
of Babajan of Nanjangudu with high speed in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against
the drainage which is on the left side of the
road, as a result of which the said vehicle was
capsized, I was sustained bleeding injuries as
detailed in the wound certificate and one of my
co-worker by name Prabhakara @ Prabha was
died at spot who was one of my villager and co-
worker."
12. In the course of cross-examination of claimants
by the Insurance Company, they have suggested that they
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
were traveling in the goods vehicle as passengers sitting
on the electric cable. Therefore, it is very clear that there
was electrical cable in the offending vehicle. It was also
not disputed that they were traveling in the goods vehicle.
The specific case of the claimants is that they were hired
for labour work for digging the trench for installation of
electrical pole and they are doing the work on piece
contract basis. Each workers traveling along with the
electrical goods, which belongs to them. From the
evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 it is very clear that they were
traveling along with the goods. Therefore, the contention
of the Insurance Company that the claimants were
traveling as gratuitous passengers cannot be accepted.
13. In respect of the second contention urged by the
Insurance Company that even under Section 147 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, either the owner or one of the
representative of the owner are entitled for compensation
is concerned, the same is dealt with under Rule 100 of the
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules has been framed under
Rule 100. Rule 100(1) is extracted below:
"100. Carriage of persons in goods vehicle.--
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Rule, no person
shall be carried in a goods vehicle:
Provided that the owner or the hirer or a bona
fide employee of the owner or the hirer of the
vehicle carried free of charge or a police officer in
uniform travelling on duty may be carried in a
goods vehicle, the total number of persons so
carried.--
(i) in light transport goods vehicle having
registered laden weight less that 990 kgs. not more
than one;
(ii) in any other light transport goods vehicle not
more than three; and
(iii) in any goods vehicle not more than seven:
Provided that the provisions of sub-clauses (ii)
and (iii) of the above proviso shall not be applicable
to the vehicles plying on inter-State routes or the
vehicles carrying goods from one city to another
city."
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
14. The offending vehicle is a transport vehicle. As
per Rule 100(1)(ii) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules,
three persons can travel. Even, this Court, in the case of
HUSENSAB GOUSUSAB TALIKOTI (supra) held as
below:
"7. Now, it is not in dispute that the said
offending lorry in the instant case was a heavy
goods vehicle. Therefore, it attracts and was
governed by clause (iii) of the proviso to sub-rule
(1) of Rule 100. This provision read with sub-clause
(xxxi) of Section 96(2) makes it clear that
excluding the driver, in all seven employees of the
owner or hirer of the vehicle or for that matter
seven hirers of the vehicle were permitted to be
carried therein. Therefore, in the case in hand, all
the victims of the accident having been shown to be
travelling in the vehicle along with their goods, shall
have to be taken as hirers of the vehicle for
transportation of their goods therein. In that view
of the matter, it follows that by reason of the said
Act Policy of the petitioner insurer issued respecting
the said vehicle, the insurer becomes liable to
indemnify the insured owner of the vehicle against
his liability to satisfy seven of the awards passed in
the aforestated batch of claims cases by the
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
Tribunal, since the driver of the vehicle has to be
excluded from consideration for the purpose of
determining the extent of insurer's liability as
envisaged in sub-clause (xxxi) of Section 96(2)
read with Rule 100. Hence, the finding of the
Tribunal that the insurer is liable to satisfy all the
said awards exceeding the statutory limit of seven
in number cannot be sustained in law."
15. This Court, in the case of Alipeer (supra) held as
under:
" 5. The Rule 100 of Karnataka Motor Vehicle
Rules permit certain category of persons to travel in
the goods vehicle. In case of lighter goods vehicle,
the permitted capacity of passengers is 2+1
including driver. In the case of heavy goods vehicle,
the permitted capacity is 5+1 including the driver.
Therefore, as per the Tariff Regulation if there is a
contract to cover the risk owner of goods travelling
in the vehicle under the category of non-fare paid
passenger as per IMT 13/14, the insurer will be
liable to pay the compensation.
6. In the rural life style of India, with very
poor inadequate transport infrastructure, the
agriculturists often jointly engage a goods vehicle
for transportation of their agricultural produce. In
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
such a situation, the owners/representatives of the
goods are eligible to travel along with their goods.
However, the number of such owners/
representatives should not exceed permitted
seating capacity as stated in Rule 100 of K.M.V.
Rules. In that view, the contention that the entire
lorry should have been exclusively hired by only
one person and only in respect of such owner of
goods, the insurer incurs liability under Section 147
is an untenable argument."
16. In view of the above, since there are only three
claim petitions, the claimants are entitled for
compensation.
17. In respect of implication of the substitution of
the driver is concerned, the Insurance Company has taken
a specific contention that in the FIR, it is specifically stated
that one Rohit was driving the offending vehicle. The
owner of the offending vehicle has filed a written
statement and he has not denied that. In the charge
sheet, the name of one Kaisar Khan has been mentioned.
Since Rohit has no driving licence, to make a false claim
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
they have substituted a different driver. The Tribunal has
not framed any issue on this aspect. The investigating
officer has not been examined. Therefore, only in respect
of this issue is concerned, the matter requires to be
remitted back to the Tribunal.
18. In respect of payment of compensation is
concerned, since the offending vehicle is covered with a
valid insurance policy, the Insurance Company has to pay
the compensation amount with liberty to recover the same
from the owner of the offending vehicle, in case it is
proved that the driver has been substituted.
Re.quantum in MFA Crob.No.28/2022 arising out of
MVC No.541/2016:
19. The claim petition is filed by the legal
representatives of the deceased Prabhakar. The claimants
claim that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month,
but failed to produce supporting documents to
substantiate their claim. In the absence of proof of
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
income, the notional income has to be assessed. According
to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year
2016, the notional income of the deceased shall be taken
at Rs.9,500/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to
be added on account of future prospects in view of the law
laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
in 'PRANAY SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income
comes to Rs.13,300/-. Since there are 2 dependents, it is
appropriate to deduct 1/3rd of the income of the deceased
towards personal expenses and remaining amount, i.e.,
Rs.8,867/- has to be taken as his contribution to the
family. The deceased was aged about 32 years at the
time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age
group is '16'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.17,02,464/- (Rs.8,867*12*16) on
account of 'loss of dependency'.
20. In addition, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate'
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral
expenses'. Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled
for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of
spousal consortium'.
21. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE'
(supra), claimant No.2, daughter of the deceased is
entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head
of 'loss of parental consortium'.
22. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 17,02,464
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal consortium 40,000
Loss of Parental consortium 40,000
Total 18,12,464
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
23. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) The appeals are disposed of. The cross objection is
allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
(iii) The claimants in MFA Crob.No.28/2022 are
entitled to a total compensation of Rs.18,12,464/- as
against Rs.13,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
(iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of
realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(v) The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal only to
consider the issue of whether the driver has been
substituted by the owner to make a false claim. If it is
proved that the driver has been substituted, then the
Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36255
AND 1 OTHER
compensation amount from the owner of the offending
vehicle.
(vi) In view of the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by
this Court, the claimants are not entitled to interest on the
enhanced compensation for the delayed period of 350
days in filing the cross-objection.
(vii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be
transferred to the Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
CM
