Karnataka High Court
Ranjana Bhateja W/O B Suresh vs Gowramma on 29 October, 2009
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao, Ravi Malimath
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DATED THIS THE 291% DAY OF 0cT0D.I§iR,, 2DC§"9"T -A '
PRESENT"-
THE HONBLE MR. JUsT'1C';:
THE HDNBLE; MR. qI.;..sTiCE«.RAVi MA_§,1MATH
M.F.A;"'N¢..
M.F.A.. N_o,. 1019 2062»
'
SMT;__ RA1\kIAI\WBHA71'FJA_. ' --
W/0.<I3. SURESH}. --
AGE: A'
NO, 37, 1"@WcR0ss, "
BANGALORE - 56{}--0'03.
' APPELLANT
' (BYDATS'."Ar,j:HENNARAYA REDDY. ADVOCATE)
1.' .. GQWRAMMA,
'W/O. LATE NAGARAJA,
O 'O AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
R/O. NO. 639.
I MAIN ROAD. RAJAJINAGAR.
BANGALORE -- 560 040.
rd
MANJUNATH.
S / O. LATE NAGARAJA.
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
')
MINOR <31 REP. BY NATUAL GUARDIAN 81
MOTHER SMT. RANJANA BHATEJA,
R-1 AND R-2 ARE R/AT NO. 639,
I MAIN ROAD. RAJAJINAGAR.
BANGALORE ~ 560 0040.
3. JAYARAM, S/O NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O. NO. 639. .4 '-
1 MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, "
BANGALORE - 560 040. "
4. NAGAPPA, S/O. .SREN:A1=.{RA....
AGED ABOUT 63 A; * .j_ _
R/ATNO639,IMA1N1?.OA1i),="~..
RAJAJINAGAR, .
BANGALOR_E A E5;60=:O«4;O.
5. [THEOR{EN*':fA:.._1RSURANCE CO. LTD.,
F.REG£ON'A1;-OREIC_E',-~ ., ' -
NO. 44/4.5','vRESzDI;NCY ROAD.
BANGALORE' A :25.'-,
6, . _;f SR1 T. A.M.ARNA.FH,
- AGE.:MAJOR;*
N.O._1'e.0, J.C. ROAD.
_ NO. STH CROSS,
"MA;LI,ESWARAM.
SAM:-.ALORE.
' -. RESPONDENTS
[BY ~~SR;I_ A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R5}
---- .. {BY SR1 MURARI MOUNI. ADVOCATE FOR R1 8: R2] '' _ R:-3 8: R-4 SINCE DEAD AND OMITTED » {DE COURT ORDER DATED 23.01.2009} THIS MEA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.10.02 PASSED IN MVC NO466/93 ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADD}... SMALL CAUSES JUDGE 8: MEMBER. MACT~7. BANGALORE. 3 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM I>E"1j1j1fION--".."-CEOR COMPENSATION. " A M.F.A.CROB. No.23 OF 2005:-
BETVVEEN:~ I. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O. LATE NAGARA.J..=' AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, {'0 MANJUNATH, "
S/O. LATE NAGARAJ. , . , AGED ABOUT 15 'YEARS;
MINOR 6: REP. BY.1\TATUAL._GE'JARIj)1AN & Ix/IO'1*I«1E_I;>._jSM_T_ EANJANA BHA'rEJ.A; BOTH I5LRE';..R.if$. «mMMA.SAIvO_RA VILLAGE, KANNAMANG A E ».A_"P.'OS_1'.I _ VDO-DDABALLAPU'RAI*TALUK, BANGALQRE_j'DISTRICT.
' 'I CROSS OBJECTORS [I3_'E-j'S}"?.i1\/IUR"AE_§I MOUNI, ADVOCATE) _ I-;'__ SVNIT. RANJANA BHATEJA, Ex)-
NO;37..'16T" CROSS.
MAL.I;'ESWARAl\/1, .. BANGALORE um 03.
" THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., " REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.4-4/45, RESIDENCY ROAD.
BANGALORE --« 25.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
RESPONDENTS {BY SRI S. CPIENNARAYA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1) {BY SR1 AN. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) 30/ THIS IvIEA.cRoE. IS FILED U/O 41 RUI,i3__ll;'.:;'Ci5lsflC1?C AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATaED:'I_yit3...o2, PASSED IN MVC No.4e6/93 ON THE FILE'-._Qi='fTHE *9T11a... ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDoEm& M.EiVEBER,"'i.MACTw7;.p' BANGALORE. SCCH No.7. PARTLY ALIIOIWIEJG 'Tl_iE"CLAI.M f PETITION FOR COMPENSA'FIO'N.. AND sjE.Ert:No ENHANCEMENT OF COMPE3NSA'i'I_Q:i*»IV_ 18% PA.
'$731.13 -3PP3.;a].-':flI1(i£C0H1iI1g°'.QI1,VfO1' hearing} this day. SREEDI-IAR RAO, J .v.:~'d.elivere'd the fol_1owing:"'~ no One years died in a motor ve€l1icl'e._Va.ee§_denIA__;""i7he"7_\xIi_fe__and minor son of the deceased 'had'lVwfii.¢iditheT13et'ition Seeking compensation and are in appeal Seeliilnglfenhancemetil; of compensation. The tI*i4bI,1"r1a,l awarded conipensation against the owner of the V' 'Vehicl'e{'Fhe«..ciaiI11 against the insurer is rejected. The owner .lt.E_1_S.1 filled: appeal. The petitioners have filed crosS~ olo}ect.i'ons «~seek.ing enhancement of the compensation. '''The occurrence of the accident, negligence of the driver l the offending vehicle and coverage of insurance is not in Jldispute. The insurarice policy is produced at Ex.R.11. The insurer contends that the policy produced is concocted. The policy produced would be issued only in respect of 5 commercial vehicle. The vehicle in question *i7i'at jC.é1"11-- a private Vehicle. Hence, the insurer would Iiot'AhVaVeA_di3siueid-- ihe policy peitainirig to cominerciei Vehieiee. Tnehvinsurer has examined one of the offieizils e()iri§§;if1y witness is a private investigéiti«o:r'*ot" the heinsurer has produced the Copypoi" the EIi<'.'R.'6 Show that the' Policy in qE,i€S'[.iOI1"'\2VV'.'43.'$ of' an auto. The oral €Vid6HpQ~:é£,«:.th€ to the above effect. The t1'ia1g'eo'ti3?t. pLi1icy'~Ex.R.1 1 is not issued in resp'eetdVo'i: Hence. rejected the ciaim agaihstiithei ' .
~.Jl|')FV)ii(_\.;S\>'¢4,§:''.1/A}A(~;v_1§;6'..>kf)r0duCed by the insurer bears poiicy is ie'St1"ee'.z'by Calieut branch; Ex.R.1 1--poIiey of the V ".N0.-42153/01/MV is issued by Indiranagar .' A Iii the oral evidence RW2 states that he has not ve1'i.fived t.he cash book pertaining to the payment of premium
2 'do"£..«Indiraiiagai* Branch. Ex.R.6 is produced would not tally with the 1/material p'c11'ti(,'.ll1E1I'S in Ex.R.ii. Besides. the available evidence like cash~books. premium receipt register oi' Iriciiraiiagar Branch not produced. The insurer has 4/ 5 produced the cash-book and premium 1-ece1pt..'re:g«!.st:e_r of Rajajinagar branch which is totally consideration of the point in issue._ Theelfidence'*w'hatevei<_ produced by the insurer to impeacl?i'_"cEl:re is totally unconvincing.
in respect. of fiat car in tovvficommercial Vehicle is not a that policy as per EX.P.I i is COHCOC'L€d,.~l}1. _t'r1at-.View.loI' rnatter, the finding of the trial l._cou3rt _fti'1a'tj thelllvehliclel' iri'question is not covered by t:iiellpo'1rio§r is he to be working as a painter. His income tfo..be Rs.1800/-- p.111. US to be deducted .ijowards .,person'al.eripeiises. Rs.l200/-- p.m. would €1'1LlI"€ to V the l'3.e:i'1e_l'it 51-'. the dependants. The total loss of dependency ll . would' V Rs. l2OO{incorne]Xl2[1'nonths)Xl7[multiplier}= The wife is entitled to Rs.25000/~: petitioners it together are entitled to Rs.25000/- towards expectancy and lRs.l0000/-- is awarded towards funeral expenses. In all, the petitioners are t'.I'1l,ll'l€(l to a t.oi,a.1 cornpensai.iori oi"
Rs.3,04.,800/-- with interest at iii'-Rb p.a. from the date of the 'L/,_ 7 petition till payment as against Rs.2.30.000/~ by the tribunal. The insurer shall pay Accordingly, the appeal and cross:.Ol__3ject_i'ons"aiielallvowecl in 1 the terms indicated above.
The appellant is pertnitted toAwiihdraiyllEhe-..amount deposit. The compensation a\2iiareled_» shall belvlpayiable equally to the petitioners and provision for any deposit. V " ._ '1"-l JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE