Karnataka High Court
Channamma W/O Late Govind vs Baburao S/O Gundappa Patil on 3 December, 2012
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA,
ON THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.30218 OF 2009 (MV)
BETWEEN
1. CHANNAMMA
W/O LATE GOVIND
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
2. ROOPA
D/O LATE GOVIND
AGE: 8 YEARS
OCC: STUDENT MINOR
3. PUSHPA
D/O LATE GOVIND
AGE: 6 YEARS, MINOR
4. TEJASHWINI
D/O LATE GOVIND
AGE: 4 YEARS, MINOR
APPELLANTS NO. 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS
U/G OF MOTHER CHANNAMMA
ALL ARE R/O H.NO.146
CIB COLONY, BEHIND NEKRTC
GULBARGA ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
2
AND
1. BABURAO
S/O GUNDAPPA PATIL
MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF
JEEP NO.MH-13/A-2720
R/O NASIR WADI, TQ.ALAND
DIST.GULBARGA
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
CO LTD., THROUGH ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
JAWALI COMPLEX, SUPER MARKET
GULBARGA ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV FOR R2
R1 SD UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 05.12.2008 PASSED
IN MVC NO.128/2008 ON THE FILE THE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN) & MACT AT GULBARGA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The case made out is that on 22.10.2007 when the deceased Govind and others had been to Koralli village for performing bhajana and were returning at about 09.00 p.m. in a jeep bearing No. MH.13.A.2720, the same was being driven by the owner Respondent No.1. Due to 3 driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, he lost control over the vehicle and it turned turtle. The deceased succumbed to the injuries, that he sustained. On a claim petition being filed by his legal representatives, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/- along with interest. By placing reliance on insurance policy it held, it does not cover the risk of inmates of the vehicle. Questioning the same, the claimants have presented the appeal questioning the liability and also to seek enhancement.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is improper. He contends that having collected a sum of Rs.2,525/- as premium and other taxes etc., same has to be considered as valid. That it covers the risk of passengers of the vehicle. On the other hand the learned counsel for the insurer supports the said finding. He placed reliance of the judgements reported in; 4
(1) ILR 2012 KAR 1841 in the case of The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahadev Pandurang Patil and another. (2) 2009 (3) TAC 564 (Karnataka) in the case of Divisional Controller/Chief Custodian of Internal Insurance Fund, Bangalore vs. K.C.Roopa and others.
(3) 2009 ACJ 1433 in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., .vs. Sheela andothers. (4) 2009 ACJ 1419 in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., .vs. C.S.Anilkumar and others.
(5) ILR 2012 KAR 1841 in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .vs. Mahadev Pandurang Patil and others.
Therefore, he contends that the policy being an ACT policy would not cover the risk of inmates of the vehicle. Considering the material on record, I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellants in view 5 of catena of decisions on the said issue. It cannot be presumed that only because a certain amount has been collected as a premium it cannot be read that the insurance policy covers those persons that have not been mentioned in the policy. Necessarily irrespective of the fact what extent amount was collected as premium, what is mentioned in the policy alone would be executable and it is only to that extent insurer will be liable. He cannot be held for acts beyond the policy. Policy being a question of contract, the parties are bound by the same. There is no cross examination by the appellants on this issue. Hence it cannot be accepted for the first time before this Court. It is not the case of the claimants. Under these circumstances the findings recorded by the Tribunal so far as the liability is concerned, is just and proper and undisturbed.
4. So far as enhancement is concerned, the case made out is that the deceased was a labourer and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. The Tribunal held the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. The accident is of the year 2007. 6 Following the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 2951 in the case of Ramchandrappa vs. Manager Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co. Ltd., it would be appropriate to hold the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month. He was aged 35 years. The proper multiplier is 16. Since there are 04 dependents, deductions of 1/3rd made by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It should be 1/4th. Consequently the loss of dependency works out as follows;
Rs.5,000 less 1/4th x 12 x 16 = Rs.7,20,000/- Towards loss of consortium a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded. Towards loss of love and affection, sum of Rs.45,000/- is awarded, including whatever has been granted. Towards transportation of dead body, the same is increased further by a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The amount towards loss of estate is undisturbed. Hence in all the claimant is awarded compensation as follows;
1) Loss of Estate Rs. 5,000/-
2) Towards loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/-
7
3) Towards loss of love and Rs. 45,000/-
affection.
4) Loss of dependency Rs.7,20,000/-
5) Towards transportation of dead Rs. 10,000/- body.
-----------------
Total Rs.8,85,000/-
-----------------
5. In all the compensation is enhanced by a sum of Rs.5,05,000/-(Rs.8,85,000/- less Rs.3,80,000/-) which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of payment and shall be paid within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE *MK