Karnataka High Court

Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Govindamma And Ors on 29 January, 2025

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC-K:643
                                                       MFA No. 203635 of 2023
                                                   C/W MFA No. 202228 of 2023




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                              BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI


                              MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.203635/2023 (MV-D)
                                                C/W.
                              MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202228/2023(MV-D)

                       IN MFA NO.203635/2023:

                       BETWEEN:

                       1.   SMT. GOVINDAMMA W/O SHIVAPPA,
                            AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                            OCC: HOUSEHOLD.

                       2.   MAHESHWARI D/O SHIVAPPA,
                            AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
          Digitally
                            OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
          signed by
          LUCYGRACE
LUCYGRACE Date:
          2025.02.03
          10:58:37 -
          0800         3.   REVANA SIDDA S/O SHIVAPPA,
                            AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
                            OCC: STUDENT,
                            ALL ARE R/O BAYIDODDI VILLAGE,
                            TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584 102.
                                                                ...APPELLANTS
                       (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)

                       AND:

                       1.   THIMMAPPA S/O SANNA HANUMANTHA,
                            AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER,
                          -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC-K:643
                                MFA No. 203635 of 2023
                            C/W MFA No. 202228 of 2023




     R/O BAYIDODDI VILLAGE,
     TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584 102.

2.   MADHUSUDHAN S/O VIJAY SHANKAR,
     AGE: MAJOR, R/O BAYIDODDI VILLAGE,
     TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584 102.

3.   SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     THROUGH ITS BRANCH OFFICE,
     S.5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
     INFANTRY ROAD,
     BANGALORE-560 001,
     POLICY NO.1003/31/19/017847
     VALID FROM 24.04.18 TO 23.04.19.

4.   BALAKRISHNA S/O HANUMANT,
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O H.NO.80, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,
     R/O HUTTI, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
     DIST. RAICHUR-584 122.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADV., FOR R3;
R1, R2 & R4-V/O. DTD.18.01.2024 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ENHANCE THE
AWARD AMOUNT BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.03.2023 PASSED BY
THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., RAICHUR
IN MVC NO.588/2019.

IN MFA NO.202228/2023:

BETWEEN:

SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS BRANCH OFFICE,
                          -3-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC-K:643
                               MFA No. 203635 of 2023
                           C/W MFA No. 202228 of 2023




S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
                                           ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1.   SMT. GOVINDAMMA W/O. SHIVAPPA,
     AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.

2.   MAHESHWARI D/O SHIVAPPA,
     AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.

3.   REVANA SIDDA S/O SHIVAPPA,
     AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

     ALL ARE R/O BAYIDODDI VILLAGE,
     TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584 101.

4.   THIMMAPPA S/O SANNA HANUMANTHA,
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER,
     R/O BAYIDODDI VILLAGE,
     TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584 101.

5.   MADHUSUDHAN S/O VIJAY SHANKAR,
     AGE: MAJOR, R/O BAYIDODDI VILLAGE,
     TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584 101.

6.   BALAKRISHNA S/O HANUMANT,
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O H.NO.80, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,
     R/O HUTTI, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
     DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3;
NOTICE TO R4, R5 & R6-SERVED BUT, UN-REPRESENTED)
                               -4-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC-K:643
                                     MFA No. 203635 of 2023
                                 C/W MFA No. 202228 of 2023




     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.03.2023,
IN MVC NO.588/2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, RAICHUR.

    THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI


                      ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI)

1. Heard learned counsel Sri Basavaraj R. Math

appearing for the petitioners-claimants and learned

counsels Sri Sudarshan M., and Sri Subhash Mallapur

appearing for the Insurance Company in both the matters.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award

dated 03.03.2023 passed in MVC No.588/2019 by the II

Additional Senior Civil judge and M.A.C.T. at Raichur, (for

short 'Tribunal'), the petitioners-claimants and respondent

No.3-Insurance Company are before this Court in their

respective appeals.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:643

3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the Tribunal.

4. The factual matrix of the case is as below:

a) The deceased-Shivappa was working as a

Cleaner in a Bolero Vehicle of respondent No.2 bearing

registration No.KA-36/A-6359 on monthly salary of

Rs.9,000/- with bata Rs.100 per day. On 11.11.2018

while the deceased was proceeding to Mantralaya as a

Cleaner in the said vehicle, near Yeragera Village the

driver of the Bolero pickup vehicle drove the same in

negligent manner and it turned turtle, resulting in injuries

to deceased causing his instantaneous death. A case was

registered by the Police in Crime No.189/2018 and after

investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the driver of

the vehicle. The dependents of the deceased have

approached Tribunal seeking adequate compensation.

b) On being served with notice, respondent Nos.1

to 3 appeared before the Tribunal and respondent No.4

NC: 2025:KHC-K:643

was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2, the owner of the

vehicle has filed written statement admitting that

deceased was cleaner on his vehicle and he used to pay a

salary of Rs.9,000/- per month and bata of Rs.100/- per

day. However, he denied rash and negligent driving and

alleged that the compensation claimed as highly exorbitant

and imaginary. However, he submitted that the driver of

the vehicle was having a valid driving license, hence, the

liability, if any, has to be fastened upon respondent No.3 -

Insurance Company.

c) Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company

contended that the compensation claimed is highly

exorbitant and imaginary. It denied the income and

occupation of the deceased. It was contended that the

deceased was traveling as an unauthorized passenger

along with 25 other passengers in the goods vehicle in

violation of the provisions of the M.V. Act and the policy

conditions. It was contended that the petitioners should

have approached the Commissioner under the Employees

NC: 2025:KHC-K:643

Compensation Act and therefore, the petition is not

maintainable.

d) On the basis of the above contentions,

appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and

evidence was led. Petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1

and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. Respondent No.2 was

examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked and

the official of respondent No.3 was examined as RW2 and

documents at Exs.R3 and R4 were marked.

e) After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal

awarded a compensation of Rs.11,01,000/- under the

following heads:

1 Towards loss of dependency Rs.9,36,000/- 2 Towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 3 Towards loss of Spousal Rs.40,000/-

consortium 4 Towards parental consortium Rs.80,000/- 5 10% escalation amount Rs.15,000/- 6 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-

TOTAL Rs.11,01,000/-

NC: 2025:KHC-K:643

f) The Tribunal also fastened the liability on the

Insurance Company to pay the award amount to the

petitioners.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and

award, the petitioners have approached this Court

contending that the quantum of the compensation amount

awarded by the Tribunal is abysmally low and it has not

properly appreciated the evidence on records while

assessing the income of the deceased.

6. The Insurance Company is before this Court

contending that its defence was not properly appreciated

by the Tribunal and it has wrongly fastened the liability on

it.

7. On admitting the appeal, the Tribunal records

have been secured and perused the same.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners-claimants submits that there is a clear

NC: 2025:KHC-K:643

evidence by RW1, the owner of the vehicle that he had

employed the deceased Shivappa as a cleaner and was

paying Rs.9,000/- per month as salary and Rs.100/- per

day as bata, in total Rs.12,000 per month, but the

Tribunal erred in holding the income at Rs.9,000/- only.

Therefore, he seeks indulgence of this Court.

9. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Subhash

Mallapur appearing for the Insurance Company would

submit that the FIR and other police papers clearly show

that the deceased was one among 20 plus members, who

were traveling in the said Bolero Goods Vehicle and

therefore, he was a gratuitous passenger. It is contended

that the deceased was traveling on the body of the

vehicle, therefore, he cannot be construed as Cleaner, who

is covered under the policy. It is further submitted that

the petitioner should have approached the Commissioner

under the Employees Compensation Act and they could

not have invoked the provisions of Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act. Further, it is submitted that the

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:643

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and

correct.

10. The first aspect to be considered is that

whether the contention of the Insurance Company that the

present petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act is permissible or not is a settled proposition of law that

if there are two legislations, which can provide succour to

the needy, the one, which is more beneficial may be

adopted. Evidently, the provisions of the Employees

Compensation Act are meant for the workmen, who suffer

accidents or injuries during course of employment, which

need not be in a motor vehicle accident. Therefore, the

Employees Compensation Act covers a larger gamut of the

beneficiaries, who do not fall under the scope of the Motor

Vehicles Act. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act cover a

major portion of the people, who are not employees of the

owner of the vehicle. Nevertheless, there is overlapping

area, where the sufferers may be the workmen also and

they suffer the injury while the vehicle was in use. The

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:643

provisions of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act provide

an option to the claimant. Therefore, there is no bar for

an employee to claim the compensation under the

provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. This proposition of

law has been decided in several of the decisions including

the case of Narayana V/s. Sangita1. Therefore, this

argument by learned counsel Sri Subhash Mallapur cannot

be accepted.

11. The second point raised by learned counsel for

the Insurance Company is that the deceased was traveling

on the body of the goods vehicle, which is not permitted

and therefore, he was a gratuitous passenger. A careful

perusal of the cross-examination of PW1, the affidavit

evidence of RW2 and the police papers including the FIR

and charge-sheet would show that there is absolutely no

material to establish that the deceased was traveling in

the body of the vehicle. What the complainant states in

his complaint to the police is that including the

2022 SCC Onlin Bom 1214

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:643

complainant, several others were sitting on the body of

the vehicle. He specifically states in the complaint that the

deceased Shivappa S/o. Devarayyanna and one

Siddaramulu S/o.Narasappa were also sitting and the

driver Thimmappa was driving the vehicle. This statement

in the complaint gives a general meaning that the

deceased Shivappa and another may be sitting by the side

of the driver also. Therefore, the complaint being unclear

regarding the contention raised by the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company, it having not been spoken to by

RW2 as well as not suggested to PW1, it falls to the

ground. Therefore, this argument appears to be bereft of

the pleadings and the suggestions in the cross-

examination.

12. The third aspect to be considered is regarding

the quantum of compensation. It is pertinent to note that

the Tribunal holds the income of the deceased to be

Rs.9,000/- per month, but it fails to add the future

prospects. The learned counsel appearing for the

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:643

petitioners would submit that the notional income

considered by the Tribunal is on the higher side. But the

one, stated by RW1 is on the lower side. It is pertinent to

note that though the petitioners contended that the

deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month and a sum of

Rs.100/- per day as bata, RW1 - owner of the vehicle has

stated that the deceased was being paid a salary of

Rs.8,000/- per month and Rs.50/- per day as bata. In

other words, the evidence on record in the form of the

testimony of the RW1 would show that it was Rs.9,500/-

per month, but the one, contended by the appellants-

petitioners is Rs.12,000/- per month.

13. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka

State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) for settlement of

the disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribe the notional

income of Rs.11,750/- for the year 2018. In umpteen

number of decisions, this Court has held that the

guidelines issued by KSLSA are held to be acceptable on

the ground that they are in general conformity with the

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:643

minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. It

is pertinent to note that considering a salary, which is less

than prescribed under Minimum Wages Act would be

against the provisions of law. Even the RW1 was bound to

pay a salary in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act,

failing which, it would attract the penal provisions.

Therefore, the notional income at Rs.11,750/- has to be

considered by the Court. Further, while calculating the

compensation, the relevant multiplier to be considered is

'13' for the age of 50 years and 1/3 of the total income

has to be deducted to the personal expenses of the

deceased. In that view of the matter, the compensation

under the head of loss of dependency is to be calculated

(Rs.11,750/- + 1,175/-) x 12 x 13 x 2/3= Rs.13,44,200/-.

14. In addition to the compensation awarded under

the head loss of dependency, the petitioners are also

entitled for another sum of Rs.52,000 under the head of

loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.19,500/- towards

funeral and transportation and Rs.19,500/- towards loss of

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:643

estate after giving escalation of 10% as held in the case of

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi and others2. In all, the petitioners are entitled for

Rs.14,35,200/-. Hence, the additional compensation

entitled by the appellants-petitioners would be

Rs.14,35,200 - 11,01,000 = Rs.3,34,200/-.

15. In the result, the following:

ORDER

i) The MFA No.203635/2023 filed by the

petitioners-claimants is allowed in part and the

MFA No.202228/2023 filed by the Insurance

Company is dismissed.

ii) The petitioners are entitled for a sum of

Rs.3,34,200/- in addition to what has been

awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at

(2017) 16 SCC 680