Karnataka High Court
S.Sheela vs Reliance Gen.Insu.Co.Ltd on 7 August, 2018
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.666/2016 C/w. MFA No.8983/2015 (MV)
BETW EEN
MFA No.666/2016 (MV)
BETWEEN
1. S. SHEELA
W/O LATE CHANDRAMOULI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O JAYALAKSHMI BADAVANE,
GAREHATTI,
CHITRADURGA-577 001
2. S.C. SHARATH
S/O LATE CHANDRAMOULI,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O JAYALAKSHMI BADAVANE,
GAREHATTI,
CHITRADURGA-577 001
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RELIANCE GEN. INSU. CO. LTD
REP BY ITS MANAGER,
BRANCH OFFICE,
MAGANURU COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
B.D. ROAD,
CHITRADURGA-577 001
2
2. H.N. ASHOK
S/O H. NELAPPA,
R/O V.P. EXTENSION,
1ST CROSS, THIPPESWAMY TRANSPORT,
BUS BEARING NO.KA-16/A-6959,
CHITRADURGA TOWN-577 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED:04.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.351/14 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, C.J.M., & MACT-III, CHITRADURGA,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.8983/2015 (MV)
BETWEEN
THE BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MAGANOOR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
1ST FLOOR, B.D. ROAD,
CHITRADURGA,
NOW REP BY ITS
LEGAL MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
NO.28, M.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-577 501.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)
3
AND
1. S. SHEELA
W/O CHANDRAMOULI,
NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
JAYALAKSHMI BADAVANE,
GAREHATTI,
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
2. S.C. SHARATH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
S/O LATE CHANDRAMOULI,
JAYALAKSHMI BADAVANE,
GAREHATTI,
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
3. H.N. ASHOK
S/O H. NEELAPPA,
MAJOR
R/AT V.P. EXTENSION, 1ST CROSS,
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE,
FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI VEERENDRA R. PATIL FOR
SRI A. ANANADA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED:04.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.351/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, C.J.M & MACT-III,
CHITRADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.8,48,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 7.5% P.A FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
4
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
***
JUDGMENT
MFA No.8983/2015 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 04.11.2015 passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M. and MACT-III Chitradurga (for short 'the Tribunal'), in MVC No.351/2014 claimant/ Appellants in MFA No.666/2016 have also challenged the award dated 04.11.2015 seeking enhancement of compensation. Hence, both the matters are clubbed together and common judgment has been passed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 05.03.2014 at about 2.30 p.m., the deceased Chandramouli was traveling in Thippeswamy bus bearing registration No.KA-16/A-6959 from Chitradurga towards Horakedevarapura Village, when the bus was going 5 near Chandrappa's Crusher on NH-13 Road, Chitradurga, all of a sudden the driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and accordingly dashed the left side of the bus to the road side tamarind tree, as a result of which, passengers Chandramouli and others had sustained injuries. The said Chandramouli, died in the hospital at 3.30 p.m. Subsequently, the wife and the only son of the deceased have filed a claim petition in MVC No.351/2014 before the Tribunal. To establish their case, the first claimant was examined as PW-1 and another as PW-2 witness and got marked 16 documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company has examined 3 witnesses and got marked 9 documents. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.8,48,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed an appeal in MFA No.666/2016 6 for enhancement of compensation and the Insurance Company has also challenged the award in MFA No.8983/2015 on the ground of liability.
3. Sri B. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company in MFA No.8983/2015 has contended that as on the date of the accident there was no permit for the bus bearing registration No.KA-16/A-6959. Therefore, there is no liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. He further contended that towards conventional heads, as per National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the maximum limit has been fixed for 'loss of consortium' Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- each towards 'loss of estate and funeral expenses'. Contrary to the same, in the instant case, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,40,000/-, which cannot be accepted.
7
4. Per contra, Sri A. Anand Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the alleged bus has filed an application for production of additional document along with the endorsements issued by the Regional Transport Authority on 06.01.2018 which reveals that the owner of the bus had filed an application for renewal of the permit on 05.09.2011 i.e. before expiry of the permit. As on the date of the accident i.e. on 05.03.2014 his application for renewal was pending before the Authority. Subsequently, on 26.09.2016 the permit has been renewed for the period from 27.09.2011 to 26.09.2016. As per Section 81(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the renewal will effect from the date of the expiry of the permit. Therefore, he contended that, as on the date of the accident the permit was in existence.
5. Sri Spoorthy Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that in respect of the 8 conventional heads, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the award passed by the Tribunal.
7. On 05.03.2014 at about 2.30 p.m., the bus bearing registration No.KA-16/A-6959 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the left side of the bus to a road side tamarind tree, as a result of which Chandramouli and others in the bus sustained injuries and Chandramouli died in hospital at 3.30 p.m., on the same day. As on the date of accident, the owner of the vehicle has already been filed an application for renewal of the permit on 05.09.2011. Subsequently, on 26.09.2016 the permit has been renewed from 27.09.2011 to 26.09.2016.
8. Section 81(5) of the M.V. Act reads as under:
"Where a permit has been renewed under this section after the expiry of the 9 period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of section 87, and where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded."
9. It is very clear that the application for renewal had been filed before the expiry of the permit and the permit has been renewed on 26.09.2016 from the date of its expiry. Therefore, as on the date of accident the bus bearing registration No.KA-16/A-6959 has permit. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the contention of the Insurance Company. Accordingly, the contention of the Insurance Company that as on the date of the accident, the bus bearing registration No.KA-16/A-6959 has no permit, is rejected.
10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that as per Pranay Sethi's case cited 10 supra, under conventional heads the Supreme Court has fixed the outer limits in the categories of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses at Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/-, respectively. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,40,000/-. In view of Pranay Sethi's case, the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Hence, in these three categories this Court, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) the amounts are reduced from Rs.1,40,000/- to Rs.70,000/-. Accordingly, the MFA No.8983/2015 filed by the Insurance Company is hereby allowed in part.
11. In MFA No.666/2016 the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimants is that the deceased was running a bakery and he used to earn Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. The 11 Tribunal was not justified in taking notional monthly income at Rs.7,000/-. Even if the notional monthly income has been taken as per the chart prepared by this Court, for the accident year 2014 it would be Rs.8,500/- per month. Therefore, he contended that the income of the deceased has to be increased from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,500/- per month.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that even though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month, they have not produced any documents to establish the same. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income at Rs.7,000/- per month.
13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in this regard.
12
14. The claimants are wife and son of the deceased. Even though the first appellant wife has examined herself as PW1 and claimed that her husband was running a bakery and earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month, she has not produced any document to establish her case. Therefore, the Tribunal while taking notional income, should to have taken notional income at Rs.8,500/- per month as per the chart prepared by Lok Adalat, for fixing the notional income. As per the said chart, for the accident occurred in the year 2014, the notional income should be taken at Rs.8,500/-. Accordingly income of the deceased has been taken as Rs.8500/- per month and 15% of the income is added for "Future Prospects" i.e. Rs.1,275/- is added to Rs.8,500/-, it comes to Rs.9,775/- and out of it if 1/3rd i.e. Rs.3,258/- is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased it works out to Rs.6,517/-. 13 Hence, the loss of dependency has been calculated as under:
Rs.6,517/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.8,60,244/-
The claimants are entitled to Rs.8,60,244/-
towards loss of dependency as against Rs.7,08,444/-
and Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads as against Rs.1,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
15. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No.666/2016 is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MFA No.351/2014 on 04.11.2015 is hereby modified. Claimants are entitled to Rs.9,30,244/- as against Rs.8,48,444/- awarded by the Tribunal. There will be enhancement of Rs.81,800/- which carries interest at 7.5% per annum. Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The 14 disbursement of the enhanced amount shall be as per the award of the Tribunal.
The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sbs*