Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs D N Mangalamma on 9 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36991
MFA No. 7183 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6521 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 7183 OF 2017 C/W
MFA NO. 6521 OF 2017 (MV-D)
IN MFA No.7183/2017
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.73, 1ST FLOOR
OFFICERS LINE, VELLORE 630 001
TAMILNADU, CHENNAI, LEGAL MANAGER
RELIANCE GEENRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE, EAST WING
5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING
NO.8, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADV.)
AND:
1. D N MANGALAMMA
W/O LATE NATARAJU
NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
Digitally signed by
PRAJWAL A 2. D.N. SURYA
Location: HIGH COURT S/O LATE NATARAJU
OF KARNATAKA NOW AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS
3. D.N. AMULYA
D/O LATE NATARAJ
NOW AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE
MINORS REP. BY THEIR NATURAL
GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1
ALL ARE R/AT DABBEGATTA VILLAGE
DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK - 573 103
4. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36991
MFA No. 7183 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6521 of 2017
NOW AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT MALLEKAVU VILLAGE
D.N. DURGA HOBLI
KORATAGERE TALUK - 573 125
5. A. DHANAH JEYULU
S/O A. MADHUKRISHNAM NAIDU
NOW AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.13, 4TH MAIN ROAD
N.T. PET, BANGALORE 02 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HARISH N.R., ADV. FOR
SRI.PATEL D KAREGOWDA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4;
VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2023
NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
IN MFA NO.6521/2017
BETWEEN:
1. D N MANGALAMMA
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O LATE NATARAJU
2. D.N.SURYA
AGED 14 YEARS
S/O LATE NATARAJU
3. D.N.AMULYA
AGED 12 YEARS
D/O LATE NATARAJU
4. SMT. JAYAMMA
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH
APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER SMT.D.N.MANGALAMMA
APPELLANT NO.1
APPELLANT NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT
DABBEGATTA VILLAGE - 577 132
DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36991
MFA No. 7183 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6521 of 2017
APPELLANT NO.4 IS THE R/O MALLE
KAVU VILLAGE, D.N.DURGA HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DIST. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADV. FOR
SRI. PATEL D KARE GOWDA, ADV.)
AND:
1. A DHANAH JEYULU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O A.MADHUKRISHNAM NAIDU
R/O NO.13, 4TH MAIN ROAD
N.T.PET, BENGALURU-560 002
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, NO.73, I FLOOR
OFFICERS LINE VELLORE-632 001
TAMIL NADU CHENNAI BY ITS MANAGER
SERVICE ADDRESS
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, CENTENARY
BUILDING, NO.28, EAST WING
5TH FLOOR, M.G.ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
BY ITS MANAGER ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRADEEP B., ADV. FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 16.10.2017
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THESE MFA'S ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.06.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.628/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MACT XIII AT MADHUGIRI, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.12,69,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE PETITION
TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT AND IN MFA NO.6521/2017 PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:36991
MFA No. 7183 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6521 of 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
In these appeals, the Insurance Company is
challenging the impugned judgment and award
whereas the petitioners are seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall
be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 23.05.2015 at
about 7.00 p.m., the husband of petitioner No.1, father
of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, son of petitioner No.4 by
name Nataraju, the deceased, while walking in front of
Grama Panchayat building at Dabbegatta village of
Madhugiri taluk, a lorry bearing No.KA-01/AE-8510 hit
against him due to which he sustained injuries and
succumbed to death at the spot. The petitioners as
dependents approached the Tribunal for grant of
compensation. Claim was opposed by the Insurance
Company denying the very accident. After taking the
evidence and hearing both parties, the Tribunal by
NC: 2024:KHC:36991
impugned judgment and award allowed the claim
petition awarding compensation of Rs.12,69,000/- with
interest @ 6% p.a. Pleading inadequacy and seeking
enhancement of compensation, the petitioners have
filed MFA No.6521/2017 whereas the Insurance
Company is assailing the impugned judgment and
award that the lorry in question was not involved in the
accident.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri.Harish N.R.,
learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Patel D.Karegowda,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.B.Pradeep,
learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that eyewitnesses are examined before the
Tribunal to prove the accident. In view of the same,
the Tribunal has rejected the contention of the
Insurance Company about non-involvement of the
lorry. The deceased was aged 33 years, the accident is
of the year 2015, the Tribunal instead of Rs.9,000/-
NC: 2024:KHC:36991
taken the income of Rs.6,000/- per month and without
adding future prospects awarded lesser compensation
and sought for enhancement.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that, FIR was filed against an
unknown vehicle on the date of accident itself. The
Insurance Company has filed an application under
Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to summon the
complainant, owner and the Investigating Officer to
explain that the lorry in question was not involved in
the accident. The application was though allowed, but
the Insurance Company was not permitted to take
coercive steps to secure their presence before the
Tribunal. The so-called eyewitness examined by the
petitioner is not an eyewitness as his name is not
shown in the charge sheet. The Tribunal without
giving any opportunity closed the evidence of the
Insurance Company and disposed of the matter. There
was no opportunity to Insurance Company to make an
NC: 2024:KHC:36991
application for recalling. Hence, he sought for remand
of the matter.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on behalf of both sides and also
perused the materials on record.
8. Ex.P1 is FIR annexed with the complaint. On
perusal of the FIR as well as the complaint, it is
pertinent to note that the complaint was filed against
an unknown vehicle. The complaint did not point out
the description of the vehicle. The Police have drawn
mahazar on 24.05.2015 as per Ex.P2 where the lorry
bearing No.KA-01/AE-8510 has been mentioned. Who
has furnished the vehicle particulars to the
complainant or the Investigating Officer is required to
be explained before the Tribunal.
9. Ex.P3 is the seizure panchanama pertaining to
lorry. When the complaint was filed on 23.05.2015,
the complainant was unaware about the nature and the
registration number of the vehicle involved in the
NC: 2024:KHC:36991
accident. Within 24 hours, all of a sudden lorry came
into picture and it came to be seized. The application
filed by the Insurance Company under Order XVIII
Rule 17 of CPC has been allowed by the Tribunal. Even
notice was issued to the witnesses, so also the bailable
warrants. When the matter was posted for further
evidence on behalf of the Insurance Company on
06.06.2017, bailable warrant issued against the
Investigating Officer was returned as he was
transferred. The Tribunal did not record any reason
why it has not given any further opportunity to the
Insurance Company to secure its witnesses. The
reason assigned by the Tribunal that no purpose will be
served in giving an opportunity to the Insurance
Company is erroneous. When the Insurance Company
is seriously disputing the involvement of the vehicle, it
is the duty on the part of the Tribunal to facilitate the
Insurance Company to complete its evidence. Records
shows on 06.06.2017, the matter was closed and
posted for argument on 08.06.2017, 09.06.2017 and
NC: 2024:KHC:36991
judgment came to be pronounced on 19.06.2017. It
shows that the Tribunal was in hurry to dispose of the
claim petition. Hence, opportunity that was granted
was shut down to the Insurance Company.
10. As regarding quantum of compensation is
concerned, the Tribunal has taken the income at
Rs.6,000/-, even though a person with no proof of
income will earn not less than Rs.9,000/- in the year
2015. For the age of 33, future prospects of 40% has
to be considered. There are four dependants, 1/4th has
to be deducted towards personal expenses. Towards
loss of consortium to the wife and mother and loss of
love and affection to the children, Rs.40,000/- each
has to be awarded. Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of
estate and funeral expenses has to be assessed. On
conventional heads, 10% appreciation has to be
allowed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. -vs- Pranay
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36991
Sethi and Others 1. The Tribunal has not considered
these aspects. Since the matter is to be remanded as
an abundant caution while assessing compensation,
these factors shall be borne in mind by the Tribunal.
11. Without touching to the merits of the case
regarding accident, the matter requires to be
remanded keeping open the contentions of both
parties. Hence, appeal filed by the Insurance Company
deserves consideration. In view of the remand, the
appeal filed by the petitioners will not survive for
consideration, in the result, the following;
ORDER
i) MFA No.6521/2017 is dismissed;
ii) MFA No.7183/2017 is partly allowed;
iii) The impugned judgment and award is set
aside;
(2017) 16 SCC 680
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36991
iv) The matter is remanded back to the
Tribunal to the stage of further evidence of
the Insurance Company;
v) The Tribunal is directed to give opportunity
to the Insurance Company to secure the
presence of complainant, owner and the
Investigating officer, after examining them,
give an opportunity to the petitioner to
cross-examine them and to lead further
evidence, if any then to decide the case on
merits in accordance with law in the light of
the observations made supra;
(iv) Without further notice, the parties shall
appear before the Tribunal on 28.10.2024.
(v) Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to
the Tribunal along with records forthwith.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
KNM
