Karnataka High Court
Shrishail S/O Mahadev Bajantri vs Arumugam S/O Krishnana And Ors on 16 November, 2023
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201294 OF 2017 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200952 OF 2017
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200953 OF 2017
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201291 OF 2017
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201292 OF 2017
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201293 OF 2017
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201295 OF 2017
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201296 OF 2017
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201297 OF 2017
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201298 OF 2017
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201452 OF 2017
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201454 OF 2017
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201455 OF 2017
Digitally signed by
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201456 OF 2017
SOMANATH
PENTAPPA MITTE
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201458 OF 2017
Location: High
Court Of Karnataka
IN M.F.A.NO.201294 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. MUTTU @ MUTTAPPA
S/O SHIVAPPA TOTAD,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O TONSHYAL,
TQ & DIST.VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
AND:
1. ARUMUGAM S/O KRISHNANA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD NO.63, NEW NO.8,
THIRUVALLUVAR STREET,
VELLORE, TAMIL NADU - 626 127.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTORY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. BHIMAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KURI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ & DIST.VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL
S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 103
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADV., FOR R2;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV., FOR R4;
V/O. DATED 7/8/2018 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.04.2017 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT
NO.XIII AT VIJAYAPURA IN M.V.C. NO.1496/2013 IN SO FAR
AS FASTENING THE LIABILITY AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT
AND FIX THE ENTIRE LIABILITY ON THE SECOND RESPONDENT
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
IN M.F.A.NO.200952 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. VANITA W/O. GURUNATH RATHOD
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BARAKOTRI TANDA,
TQ. DIST. VIJAYAURA - 586 103
2. REKHA D/O. GURUNATH RATHOD,
AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: NIL.,
3. SHANKAR S/O. DEVALU RATHOD,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE.,
4. RAMANABAI W/O SHANKAR RATHOD,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
5. SATISH S/O. SHANKAR RATHOD,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
6. LOKESH S/O SHANKAR RATHOD,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O: BARAKOTRI TANDA,
TQ: & DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 103.
(PETITIONER NO.2 IS MINOR HER REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ARUMUGAM S/O KRISHNANA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD NO.63, NEW NO.8,
THIRUVALLUVAR STREET,
VELLORE, TAMIL NADU - 626 127.
(TAMIL NADU STATE)
(OWNER OF THE TRUCK NO.AP-21/X-5279)
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S-5, 22ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. BHIMAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KURI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ : DIST.VIJAYAPURA - 586 107.
(OWNER OF TATA ACE VEHICLE NO.KA-28/B-1209)
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
R/o: ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 108
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADV., FOR R2;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV., FOR R4;
V/O. DATED 10/10/2019 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS B) SET
ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.03.2017 PASSED IN
M.V.C.NO.195/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.IV, VIJAYAPUR AT VIJAYAPURA AND
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT THE COMPENSATION OF
RS.20,75,000/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS
BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
ETC.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
IN M.F.A.NO.200953 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SHUSHILABAI W/O BABU LAMANI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BARAKOTRI TANDA,
TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA - 586 103.
2. MADEVI D/O. BABU LAMANI,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
3. RAJASHREE D/O. BABU LAMANI,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
4. ANAND S/O. BABU LAMANI,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
5. ARAVIND S/O. BABU LAMANI,
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O. BARAKOTRI TANDA,
TQ: DIST: BARAKOTRI TANDA,
TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA - 586 103
(APPELLANT NO.5 IS MINOR HER REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ARUMUGAM S/O KRISHNANA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD NO.63, NEW NO.8,
THIRUVALLUVAR STREET,
VELLORE, - 632 001
(TAMIL NADU STATE)
(OWNER OF THE TRUCK NO.AP-21/X-5279)
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S-5, 22ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. BHIMAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KURI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ : DIST.VIJAYAPURA - 586 107.
(OWNER OF TATA ACE VEHICLE NO.KA-28/B-1209)
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
R/o: ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 108
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADV., FOR R2;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV., FOR R4;
V/O. DATED 10/10/2019 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS B) TO SET
ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.03.2017 PASSED IN
M.V.C.NO.196/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.IV, VIJAYAPUR AT VIJAYAPUR AND
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT THE COMPENSATION OF
RS.19,75,000/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS
BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
ETC.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
IN M.F.A.NO.201291 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. LAXMAN S/O. MUJAGONDAPPA BIRADAR
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
2. MALLAMMA W/O. LAXMAN BIRADAR
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
3. RENUKA W/O. DAYANAND BIRADAR
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
4. RAMANAGOUDA S/O. DAYANAND BIRADAR
AGE: 18 YEARS,
5. KAVERI D/O. DAYANAND BIRADAR
AGE: 17 YEARS, M/G BY APPELLANT NO.3,
6. SIDDANAGOUDA S/O. DAYANAND BIRADAR
AGE: 14 YEARS, M/G BY APPELLANT NO.3,
ALL ARE R/O. HONGANAHALLI,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ARUMUGAM S/O KRISHNANA,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD NO.63, NEW NO.8,
THIRUVALLUVAR STREET,
VELLORE - 626 127
(TAMIL NADU STATE)
(OWNER OF THE TRUCK NO.AP-21/X-5279)
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S-5, 22ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTORY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
3. BHIMAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KURI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ : DIST.VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADV., FOR R2;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV., FOR R4;
V/O. DATED 03/10/2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.04.2017 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT
NO.XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA IN M.V.C.NO.1493/2013 IN SO FAR
AS FASTENING THE LIABILITY AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT
AND FIX THE ENTIRE LIABILITY ON THE SECOND
RESPONDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.201292 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRISHAIL S/O MAHADEV BAJANTRI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS PEON
AND AGRICULTURIST
R/O. 23 B, NANDIKESH
GRAH NIRMAN SOCIETY, SHEIGI, SOLAPURA,
NOW RESIDING AT RAJAJI NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
AND:
1. ARUMUGAM S/O KRISHNANA,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD NO.63, NEW NO.8,
THIRUVALLUVAR STREET,
VELLORE TAMIL NADU - 626 127.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTORY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. BHIMAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KURI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ : DIST.VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADV., FOR R2;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV., FOR R4;
V/O. DATED 03/10/2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PLEASED TO ALLOW APPEAL AND MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.04.2017 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT
NO.XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA IN M.V.C.NO.1494/2013 IN SO FAR
AS FASTENING THE LIABILITY AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT
AND FIX THE ENTIRE LIABILITY ON THE SECOND
RESPONDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
IN M.F.A.NO.201293 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SHETTEPPA S/O. RAMAPPA DENGE,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ARUMUGAM S/O KRISHNANA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD NO.63, NEW NO.8,
THIRUVALLUVAR STREET,
VELLORE TAMIL NADU - 626 127.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTORY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. BHIMAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KURI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ : DIST.VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADV., FOR R2;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV., FOR R4;
V/O. DATED 03/10/2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3 - SERVED)
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.04.2017 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT
NO.XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA IN M.V.C.NO.1495/2013 IN SO FAR
AS FASTENING THE LIABILITY AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT
AND FIX THE ENTIRE LIABILITY ON THE SECOND
RESPONDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.201295 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O. UDANDAPPA SHELLIKERI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COLLIE,
R/O. HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ARUMUGAM S/O KRISHNANA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD NO.63, NEW NO.8,
THIRUVALLUVAR STREET,
VELLORE, TAMIL NADU.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTORY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. BHIMAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KURI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O HONAGANAHALLI, TQ : DIST.VIJAYAPURA.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADV., FOR R2;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV., FOR R4;
V/O. DATED 03/10/2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.04.2017 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT
NO.XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA IN M.V.C.NO.1497/2013 IN SO FAR
AS FASTENING THE LIABILITY AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT
AND FIX THE ENTIRE LIABILITY ON THE SECOND
RESPONDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.201296 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. BASAVARAJ S/O SANGAPPA TUPPAD
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
R/O. HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ARUMUGAM S/O KRISHNANA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD NO.63, NEW NO.8,
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
THIRUVALLUVAR STREET,
VELLORE TAMIL NADU - 626 127.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTORY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. BHIMAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KURI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ : DIST.VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADV., FOR R2;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV., FOR R4;
V/O. DATED 03/10/2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.04.2017 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT
NO.XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA IN M.V.C.NO.1498/2013 IN SO FAR
AS FASTENING THE LIABILITY AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT
AND FIX THE ENTIRE LIABILITY ON THE SECOND
RESPONDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
IN M.F.A.NO.201297 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. ARJUN S/O. SHIVAPPA BAJANTRI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O. HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ARUMUGAM S/O KRISHNANA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD NO.63, NEW NO.8,
THIRUVALLUVAR STREET,
VELLORE TAMIL NADU - 626 127.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTORY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. BHIMAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KURI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ : DIST.VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADV., FOR R2;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV., FOR R4;
V/O. DATED 03/10/2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3 - SERVED)
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.04.2017 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT
NO.XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA IN M.V.C.NO.1499/2013 IN SO FAR
AS FASTENING THE LIABILITY AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT
AND FIX THE ENTIRE LIABILITY ON THE SECOND
RESPONDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.201298 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. PARASARAM S/O. BHIMAPPA KURI
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
R/O. HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ARUMUGAM S/O KRISHNANA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD NO.63, NEW NO.8,
THIRUVALLUVAR STREET,
VELLORE TAMIL NADU - 626 127.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTORY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. BHIMAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KURI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ : DIST.VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADV., FOR R2;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV., FOR R4;
V/O. DATED 03/10/2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.04.2017 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT
NO.XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA IN M.V.C.NO.1500/2013 IN SO FAR
AS FASTENING THE LIABILITY AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT
AND FIX THE ENTIRE LIABILITY ON THE SECOND
RESPONDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.201452 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTORY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001 NOW
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER / SIGNATORY
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BILAKAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 076
(INSURANCE OF TRUCK REG.NO.AP-21/X-5279)
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. BHADRASHETTY SANGEETA, ADVOCATE)
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
AND:
1. LAXMAN S/O. MUJAGONDAPPA BIRADAR
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: NIL.,
2. MALLAMMA W/O. LAXMAN BIRADAR
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
3. RENUKA W/O. DAYANAND BIRADAR
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
4. RAMANAGOUDA S/O. DAYANAND BIRADAR
AGE: 18 YEARS,
5. KAVERI D/O. DAYANAND BIRADAR
AGE: 17 YEARS,
6. SIDDANAGOUDA S/O. DAYANAND BIRADAR
AGE: 14 YEARS,
RESPONDENT 5 & 6 ARE MINORS UNDER THE
GUARDIAN OF RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN
ALL RESPONDENT 1-6 HEREIN ARE
R/O HONGANAHALLI,
TQ. & DIST. BIJAPUR - 586 148
7. ARUNMUGAM S/O KRISHNAN,
AGE: 44 YEAS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O OLD NO.63, NEW NO.8
THIRUVALLUVAR STREET, VELLORE,
TAMIL NADU, PIN CODE - 632 001.
(OWNER OF TRUCK REG. NO.AP-21/X-5279)
8 BHIMAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KURI
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. HONGANAHALLI,
TQ. & DIST. BIJAPUR PIN CODE - 586 148
(OWNER OF TATA ACE REG. NO.KA-28/B-1209)
9. THE BRANCH MANGER,
IFFICO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COL. LTD.,
ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
GULBARGA - 585 103
(INSURER OF TATA ACE REG.NO.KA-28/B-1209)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV., FOR R9;
V/O. DATED 03/10/2023 NOTICE TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R1, R2, R3, R4 & R8 ARE SERVED AND UN-REPRESENTED
R5 & R6 ARE MINOR REP. BY GUARDIAN R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
M.V.C.NO.1493/2013, DATED 27.04.2017, ON THE FILE OF IV
ADLL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON JUDGMENT AND
AWARD IN M.V.C.NO.1493/2013 AND CONNECTED CASES,
DATED:27.04.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF IV ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT NO.XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA AT
VIJAYAPURA.
IN M.F.A.NO.201454 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTORY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001 NOW
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER / SIGNATORY
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BILAKAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 076
(INSURANCE OF TRUCK REG.NO.AP-21/X-5279)
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. BHADRASHETTY SANGEETA, ADVOCATE)
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
AND:
1. SHETTEPPA S/O. RAMAPPA DENGE,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ. & DIST. BIJAPUR PIN CODE - 586 148.
2. ARUMUGAM S/O KRISHNANA,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD NO.63, NEW NO.8,
THIRUVALLUVAR STREET,
VELLORE, TAMIL NADU PIN CODE - 632 001.
(OWNER OF TRUCK REG. NO.AP-21/X-5279)
3. BHIMAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KURI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ : DIST.VIJAYAPURA PIN CODE - 586 148
(OWNER OF TATA ACE REG. NO.KA-28/B-1209)
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
(INSURER OF TATA ACE REG. NO.28/B-1209)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV., FOR R4;
V/O. DATED 03/10/2023 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
M.V.C.NO.1495/2013, DATED 27.04.2017 ON THE FILE OF IV
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL NO.XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON JUDGMENT AND
AWARD IN M.V.C.NO.1495/2013, DATED 27.04.2017 PASSED
BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA.
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
IN M.F.A.NO.201455 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTORY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001 NOW
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER / SIGNATORY
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BILAKAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 076
(INSURANCE OF TRUCK REG.NO.AP-21/X-5279)
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. BHADRASHETTY SANGEETA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MUTTU @ MUTTAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA TOTAD
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. TONSHYAL,
TQ. & DIST. BIJAPUR PIN CODE - 586 121.
2. ARUMUGAM S/O KRISHNANA,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD NO.63, NEW NO.8,
THIRUVALLUVAR STREET,
VELLORE, TAMIL NADU PIN CODE - 632 001.
(OWNER OF TRUCK REG. NO.AP-21/X-5279)
3. BHIMAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KURI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ : DIST.VIJAYAPURA PIN CODE - 586 148
(OWNER OF TATA ACE REG. NO.KA-28/B-1209)
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
(INSURER OF TATA ACE REG. NO.28/B-1209)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV., FOR R4;
V/O. DATED 03/10/2023 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
M.V.C.NO.1496/2013, DATED 27.04.2017 ON THE FILE OF IV
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL NO.XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON JUDGMENT AND
AWARD IN M.V.C.NO.1496/2013, DATED 27.04.2017 PASSED
BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA.
IN M.F.A.NO.201456 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTORY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001 NOW
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER / SIGNATORY
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BILAKAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 076
(INSURANCE OF TRUCK REG.NO.AP-21/X-5279)
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. BHADRASHETTY SANGEETA, ADVOCATE)
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
AND:
1. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O UDANDAPPA SHELLIKERI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ. & DIST. BIJAPUR PIN CODE - 586 148.
2. ARUMUGAM S/O KRISHNANA,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD NO.63, NEW NO.8,
THIRUVALLUVAR STREET,
VELLORE, TAMIL NADU PIN CODE - 632 001.
(OWNER OF TRUCK REG. NO.AP-21/X-5279)
3. BHIMAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KURI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ : DIST.VIJAYAPURA PIN CODE - 586 148
(OWNER OF TATA ACE REG. NO.KA-28/B-1209)
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
(INSURER OF TATA ACE REG. NO.28/B-1209)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV., FOR R4;
V/O. DATED 03/10/2023 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
M.V.C.NO.1497/2013, DATED 27.04.2017 ON THE FILE OF IV
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL NO.XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON JUDGMENT AND
AWARD IN M.V.C.NO.1497/2013, DATED 27.04.2017 PASSED
BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA.
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
IN M.F.A.NO.201458 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTORY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001 NOW
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER / SIGNATORY
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BILAKAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 076
(INSURANCE OF TRUCK REG.NO.AP-21/X-5279)
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. BHADRASHETTY SANGEETA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ARJUN S/O SHIVAPPA BAJANTRI
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ. & DIST. BIJAPUR PIN CODE - 586 148.
2. ARUMUGAM S/O KRISHNANA,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD NO.63, NEW NO.8,
THIRUVALLUVAR STREET,
VELLORE, TAMIL NADU PIN CODE - 632 001.
(OWNER OF TRUCK REG. NO.AP-21/X-5279)
3. BHIMAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KURI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O HONAGANAHALLI,
TQ : DIST.VIJAYAPURA PIN CODE - 586 148
(OWNER OF TATA ACE REG. NO.KA-28/B-1209)
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
(INSURER OF TATA ACE REG. NO.28/B-1209)
...RESPONDENTS
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected
matters
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV., FOR R4;
V/O. DATED 03/10/2023 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
M.V.C.NO.1499/2013, DATED 27.04.2017 ON THE FILE OF IV
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL NO.XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON JUDGMENT AND
AWARD IN M.V.C.NO.1499/2013, DATED 27.04.2017 PASSED
BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XIII, AT VIJAYAPURA.
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, C.M.JOSHI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are arising out of the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1493/2013 to MVC No.1500/2013 dated 27.04.2017 by learned MACT-XIII & IV Addl. District Judge, Vijayapura and MVC No.195/2014 and MVC No.196/2014 dated 30.03.2017 by III Additional District Judge and IV MACT, Vijayapura.
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters
2. All these appeals pertain to one and the same motor vehicle accident that took place on 29.06.2013 involving the Lorry bearing No.AP-21/X-5279 and the Tata Ace goods vehicle bearing No.KA-28/B-1209.
3. The main questions raised in these appeals are regarding the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. The facts of the case germane for disposal of these appeals are as below.
On 29.06.2013 at about 7.15 p.m. near Mantur Petrol Pump, Mulawad, the deceased Dayanand Laxman Biradar and the petitioners in MVC No.1494/2013 to MVC No.1500/2013 and MVC No.195/2014 and MVC No.196/2014 were traveling in Tata Ace vehicle bearing No.KA-28/B-1209 towards Vijayapura, the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-21/X-5279 had parked the said Lorry on the road without giving any indicators or signal and the
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters said Tata Ace vehicle dashed against the said parked Lorry from behind. The said accident resulted in the injuries to the inmates of the Tata Ace vehicle and three of the inmates sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same. According to the petitioners, after the accident, injured were shifted to District Hospital, Bijapur and also to Swasthya Hospital, Bijapur, BLDE Hospital, Bijapur and underwent treatment. It was contended that the deceased and injured were working as a coolie and now they have sustained loss and disability and therefore adequate compensation has to be awarded. They alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-21/X-5279 and therefore the owner and insurer of the said Lorry are liable to pay the compensation to them.
5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 in all these petitions are the owner and the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.AP-21/X-5279. The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal despite service of notice and as
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters such placed ex-parte. The respondent No.2-insurance company resisted the claim petitions contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle bearing No.KA-28/B-1209 and he had drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the rare of the Lorry. It was contended that there was no negligence that could be attributed to the driver of the Lorry. Inter-alia it was also contended that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated by respondent No.1 and the driver of the Lorry was not having a valid and effective driving licence.
6. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 in all these petitions are the owner and insurer of the Tata Ace bearing No.KA-28/B-1209. On their appearance both of them contended that the accident was not due to the negligence of the driver(petitioner in MVC 1500/2013) of the Tata Ace vehicle and the accident was due to negligence of the Lorry driver. The respondent No.3
- 28 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters further contended that the driver of the Tata Ace was having a valid driving licence and the vehicle was insured with the respondent No.4 and therefore any liability has to be fastened upon the respondent No.4.
7. The respondent No.4 contended that the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle was not having a valid driving licence and it being a transport vehicle, the driving licence allegedly possessed by him was not valid. Apart from that it was also contended that the respondent No.3 had allowed the goods vehicle to be used by allowing gratuitous passengers and therefore there is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It was also contended that when the accident had taken place due to the negligence on the part of the Lorry driver, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are unnecessary party to the petitions. Therefore on these grounds the respondent No.4 sought to absolve its liability.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal had framed issues in all the proceedings. Since
- 29 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters the MVC No.1493/2013 to MVC No.1500/2013 were arising out of the same accident, they were clubbed together and the issues framed in MVC No.1493/2013 read as below:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 29.06.2013 at about 7.15 p.m. near Mantur Petrol Pump Mulawad, on NH-218 road, the accident has occurred due to actionable negligence of the driver of the Truck bearing Reg.No.AP-21/X-5279, as a result Dayanand S/o Laxman Biradar had sustained injuries and he succumbed to accidental injuries?
2. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the accident referred in Issue No.1 has occurred due to actionable rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-28/B-1209 by its driver?
3. Is there contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-
28/B-1209? If so, to what extent?
4. Whether the respondent No.4 proves that the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
- 30 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters
5. Whether the respondent No.2 & 4 prove that respondents No.1 & 3 have committed breach of insurance of policy conditions?
6. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
7. What order or award?
9. In MVC No.195/2014 and MVC No.196/2014, which was considered by the Addl. MACT-IV & III Addl. District Judge, Vijayapura, similar contentions were raised and appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and they were clubbed together and common evidence was led.
10. In MVC No.1493/2013 to MVC No.1500/2013, the petitioners were examined as PW1 to PW8 and the Medical officers who had assessed the disability were examined as PW9 to PW12 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P31 were marked in evidence. The respondent No.2 examined its official as RW1 and Ex.R1 was marked in evidence. The
- 31 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters respondent No.4 examined its official as RW2 and Ex.R2 to Ex.R6 were marked on it behalf. The respondent No.3 has not led any evidence in his favour.
11. In MVC No.195/2014 and MVC No.196/2014, the petitioners were examined as PW1 to PW3 and the Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 were marked. The official of the respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 was marked. The respondent No.4 examined its official as RW2 and Ex.R2 to Ex.R5 were marked on its behalf.
12. After hearing the arguments, in MVC No.1493/2013 to MVC No.1500/2013 the Tribunal held that it was a case of composite negligence and the driver of the Lorry had contributed to the extent of 60% and the driver of the Tata Ace had contributed to the extent of 40%. It was further held that the respondent No.2 having insured vehicle of the respondent No.1, is liable to shoulder the liability fastened upon the respondent No.1. It was also held that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy so far as the respondent No.3 is
- 32 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters concerned and therefore the respondent No.4 was absolved from liability. However, it was held that the inter- se apportionment between the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 would not affect the claim of the petitioners who were inmates of Tata Ace vehicle and as such respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
13. In MVC No.195/2014 and MVC No.196/2014, the Tribunal held that the respondent No.3 had allowed the gratuitous passengers in his vehicle and therefore the petitioners who were claiming on account of death of such gratuitous passengers, are not entitled for the compensation. It was held to be a case of the contributory negligence and both the petitions were dismissed.
14. Being aggrieved by the said judgments and award, the respondent No.2 had come up in appeal in MFA No.201452, MFA No.201453/2017, MFA No.201454/2017, MFA No.201455/2017, MFA No.201456/2017, MFA
- 33 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters No.201457/2017, MFA No.201458/2017, MFA No.201459/2017. Out of these appeals, MFA No.201453/2017 and MFA No.201457/2017 and MFA No.201459/2017 have been dismissed by this Court by holding that the claim amount is meager and in view of the provisions of 173(2) of M.V.Act, the appeal is not maintainable.
15. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimants have approached this Court in MFA No.201291/17 to 201298/2017, 200952/2017 and 200953/2017.
16. On issuance of notice in these appeals, the rival parties have appeared through their counsels. On admission of the appeals, the Tribunal records have been secured. The arguments by learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and the insurance companies and also the owner of Tata Ace vehicle are heard.
- 34 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters
17. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ claimants submitted that it is a case of composite negligence as rightly held by the Tribunal in MVC No. 1493/2013 to MVC No.1500/2013 and the Tribunal erred in MVC No.195/2014 and MVC No.196/2014. It is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and there is a need for reassessment of compensation. They further contended that in MVC No.195/2014 and MVC No.196/2014, the Tribunal erred in holding that it was a case of contributory negligence. It is contended that the inmates of the Tata Ace vehicle had nothing to do with contribution of any negligence and therefore claim on account of the death of the inmates of the Tata Ace vehicle could not have been rejected by the Tribunal. The claimants in MVC No.1493/2013 to MVC No.1500/2013 have restricted their contention in respect of the quantum of the compensation.
- 35 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters
18. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 in MFA No.201452/2017 to 201459/2017 contended that when the charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against the driver of the Tata Ace alone, the claim made by the claimants against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not sustainable under law. She contended that there was no such contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry, since he had parked the same on the extreme left side of the road and it could have been very well seen by the driver of the Tata Ace and as such fastening 60% liability of the Lorry driver is not justifiable. She contended that there is no need for enhancement of compensation as determined by the Tribunal and submitted that the liability should have been fastened upon the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
19. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 the owner of the Tata Ace vehicle contended that the Lorry was parked at the middle of the road without any indicators then it was at about 7.15 p.m.
- 36 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters and obviously the Tata Ace driver could not anticipate that the Lorry is parked. Therefore, he contends that there was no such contributory negligence on the part of the Tata Ace driver. Further he contended that the Tata Ace driver was having a valid driving licence and the vehicle being insured by respondent No.4-insurance company, the liability should have been fastened upon respondent No.4.
20. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4-insurance company contended that the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the respondent No.4 from any liability on account of the respondent No.3 having failed to show that the driver was having a valid driving licence. She contended that the respondent No.3 failed to show that the driver was having a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle with required endorsement and also that he could not have permitted gratuitous passengers to travel in the said goods vehicle. Therefore, on these two counts, the Tribunal is justified in exonerating the liability of respondent No.4 and no interference is required.
- 37 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters
21. The perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.1493/2013 to MVC No.1500/2013 show that it has considered the accident to be a case of composite negligence so far as the inmates of the Tata Ace are concerned. It is to be noted that except the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle, the others are the inmates of the vehicle and obviously they have nothing to do with the negligence. At no stretch of imagination it can be held the inmates of the Tata Ace vehicle were tortfeasors in commission of the tort. Evidently the driver of the Lorry and the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle are only tortfeasors in commission of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in holding that it is a case of composite negligence.
22. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others1, deals with the manner in which the case of composite negligence is to be dealt with. It was held as below: 1
(2015) 9 SCC 273
- 38 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters "22. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is as follows:
22.1. In the case of composite negligence, the plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several.
22.2. In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tortfeasors vis-à-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them.
22.3. In case all the joint tortfeasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/Tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tortfeasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of the payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/Tribunal, in the main case one joint tortfeasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings.
22.4. It would not be appropriate for the court/Tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tortfeasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tortfeasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tortfeasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award."
23. It is worth to note that in the above decision, the Apex Court has approved the view taken by a Full
- 39 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters Bench of this Court in Ganesh Vs. Sayed Munned Ahmed2 and in the case of K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Arun @ Arvind and others3.
24. Obviously the conclusions reached by the Tribunal in MVC No.195/2014 and MVC No.196/2014 are erroneous and it failed to consider that it is a case of composite negligence. It went under the premise that the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle had allowed gratuitous passengers to travel in the vehicle and therefore the gratuitous passengers are also the contributors of the negligence. We are unable to accept the view taken by the Tribunal in this regard. In para 66 in common judgment in MVC No. 1493/2013 to MVC No.1500/2013, the Tribunal has stated as below:
"In the present petitions, it is not much in dispute that respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of Truck bearing No.AP-21/X- 5279. Ex.R.1 insurance policy copy 2 ILR.1999.Kar.403 3 AIR.2004.Kar.26
- 40 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters shows that as on the date of accident the said Truck possess valid insurance coverage with the 2nd respondent. The said policy is a package policy. This court has already recorded a finding that even though the said Tata Ace vehicle bearing No.KA-28/B-1209 is a goods carriage vehicle, still the driver and owner of the said vehicle allowed the persons (deceased Dayanand Biradar and petitioners in MVC.No.1494/2013 to 1499/2013) to travel in the said vehicle at the time of accident and they were traveling in the said vehicle as an unauthorized passengers and thereby the respondent No.3 who being the owner of the said vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and even the driver of the said vehicle has also did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle as on the date of accident. In the circumstances, no liability can be saddled on the 4th respondent who is
- 41 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters the insurer of the Tata Ace vehicle bearing No.KA-28/B-1209."
25. It is evident that the FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, rough sketch etc., produced at Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 show that the Truck was parked on the extreme left side of the tar road. There is no reason to come to the conclusion that the Lorry was parked at the centre of the road blocking the way of Tata Ace vehicle. There is no reason to discard the investigation papers as they are not shown to be either erroneous or they were challenged by the respondent No.1 or 3. The road is about 22 feet wide and the mahazar shows that the Lorry was parked on the left side, within a tar road. However, the duty of the Lorry driver to switch on the parking lights or the blinkers cannot be absolved, for, the vehicle was on the National Highway. Unless there are indicators switched on, any other vehicle which is coming from behind will not be in a position to assess the distance and that the vehicle is parked. Therefore, relying on the decision of this Court in
- 42 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters Dr.Bhakta Prahalad and another V/s Niravani and others4, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the Lorry driver also.
26. It is evident that the driver of the Tata Ace has been found fault with by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet laid against him. Obviously the Lorry was parked on the left side of the road and there is no reason as to why the Tata Ace vehicle could not have bypassed the parked Lorry. No explanation is available on record to show that there was any obstruction for the Tata Ace driver to drive on the right side on the Lorry. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the Tata Ace vehicle was in high speed and therefore the driver could not control his vehicle after he realized that the Lorry was parked. Under these circumstances, no fault can be found in holding that the Tata Ace driver was also negligent in driving the vehicle.
27. The crucial question is, what is the extent of contribution of the negligence by the Lorry driver and the 4 ACJ 2787
- 43 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters Tata Ace driver? Considering the above circumstances, viz., that the Lorry was parked on the extreme left side, the road was 22 feet wide, no reason is forthcoming from the Tata Ace driver as to why he could not drive the vehicle on the right side of the Lorry and also that the Lorry driver being in control and domain of the heavy goods vehicle was to exercise higher degree of vigilance and also considering the fact that the Tata Ace is a light goods vehicle, we hold that the contributory negligence of each of the driver was 50%. The Tribunal obviously failed to appreciate that the Tata Ace driver was carrying about 10 persons in the said vehicle and had contributed higher degree of negligence and also that the Lorry driver being in control of heavy vehicle, should have switched on the indicators. Therefore, we hold that the negligence of the Tata Ace driver is 50%.
28. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei, referred supra, the contributory negligence can only be applicable to the driver of both the
- 44 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters vehicles. So far as the inmates of the vehicles are concerned, it is a case of composite negligence for them. The claimants who are the inmates and the legal heirs of inmates are entitled for recovery of the compensation amount from any one of the tortfeasors. In the case on hand, the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 being the tortfeasors are liable for the tortuous action committed by their drivers. It is not in dispute that the Lorry driver was having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and therefore the liability has to be fastened upon the respondent No.2, as it had to indemnify the respondent No. 1 under the policy.
29. So far as respondent No.3 is concerned, he has not produced the driving licence to drive the transport vehicle. The decision in the case of Pappu and Others V/s Vinod Kumar Lamba and another5, lays down that if there is any dispute between the owner and insurer regarding the driving licence, it would be proper to direct 5 AIR 2018 Sc 592
- 45 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters the insurance company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the insured.
30. In the case on hand, it is not only the non possession of the valid driving licence but also driving the vehicle with gratuitous passengers, which would go in favour of respondent No.4. Obviously the respondent No.3 had allowed the gratuitous passengers to travel in Tata Ace vehicle. Therefore, under Section 147(2) of M.V.Act, the insurer need not cover gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the respondent No.4 is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.3. The decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Cholleti Bharatamma and others6, is clear in this regard. The policy issued by the respondent No.4 does not specifically cover the passengers. It is not a case of the petitioners that they were the workmen in the said goods vehicle. Therefore, the respondent No.4 has been rightly absolved from the 6 2008(1) SCC 423
- 46 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters liability. Violation of the conditions of the policy interse between the respondent Nos.3 and 4 would result in the respondent No.3-owner alone would be liable for the acts of the tortfeasor. Hence, the exoneration of respondent No.4 to pay any compensation has to be upheld.
31. In the result, we hold that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are liable qua the petitioners to pay the compensation. For the benefit of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, this Court holds that the respondent No.1 and 2 are liable to pay to the extent of 50% and respondent No.3 to pay the compensation of the remaining 50%. If the compensation in excess of 50% (covering the liability of respondent No.1) is paid by the respondent No. 2, then it would be at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.3.
32. The next aspect to be considered is regarding the quantum of the compensation.
- 47 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters Re: MFA No.201452/2017 & MFA No.201291/2017, (MVC No.1493/2013)
33. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Dayanand Biradar. The petitioners contended that the deceased Dayanand was working as a coolie aged about 44 years and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. There are six members in the family and therefore the personal expenses of the deceased has to be taken at 1/4. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month and has not considered the future prospects. In view of the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi7, future prospects should have been considered by the Tribunal. There is no material to show the income of the deceased and therefore the notional income has to be considered.
34. The guidelines issued KSLSA for settlement of the disputes before the Lok-Adalat prescribed notional 7 AIR 2017 SC 5157
- 48 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters income of Rs.7,000/- per month for the year 2013. In umpteen number of decisions, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of cases before the Lok-Adalat are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act.
35. Therefore, the income of the deceased Dayanand Biradar has to be considered at Rs.7,000/- per month and by adding future prospects at 25% which comes to Rs.1,750/-,the multiplicand would be Rs.8,750/-. Hence, loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.8,750/- x 3/4 x 12 x 14 = Rs.11,02,500/-. By adding Rs.50,000/- towards consortium, loss of filial love and affection etc., and by adding Rs.15,000/- each towards 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses', the total compensation entitled to the petitioners would be Rs.11,82,500/- under the following heads;
- 49 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters Awarded Awarded Sl.
Heads by the by
No.
Tribunal this Court.
1. Loss of dependency Rs.8,82,000/- Rs.11,02,500/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.50,000/-
3. Loss of love and Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.30,000/-
affection
4. Loss of care and Rs.1,00,000/- -
guidance for minor
children
5. Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- -
Total Rs.14,07,000/- Rs.11,82,500/-
Reduced by Rs.2,24,500/-
Re: MFA No.201292/2017 (MVC No.1494/2013)
36. The petitioner herein was examined as PW2 had suffered two simple injures and therefore the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,000/- to him as global compensation. We do not find any reason to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal which is just and proper.
Re: MFA No.201293/2017 and MFA No.201454/2017 (MVC No.1495/2013)
37. The petitioner herein Shettappa Ramappa was aged about 20 years working as a coolie and had suffered
- 50 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters fracture of the nasal bone. The Tribunal has considered the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in greate length and had to undergo Rhinoplasty. The Medical officer who assessed the disability examined as PW11 has stated he is having permanent disability of 15% to 20% and there is a disability to him. He being coolie, the tribunal was justified in holding that the disability is 8%. We find that the disability of the petitioner need to be enhanced to 10% on account of the problems he may face while working as a coolie. The fracture of the nasal bone bound to affect him in his breathing and therefore the disability is considered at 10%.
38. The Tribunal has also considered the age of the petitioner and adopted multiplier of 18. Therefore, loss of future earning is calculated by taking notional income of the petitioner at Rs.7,000/- per month as Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 18 x 10% = Rs.1,51,200/-. By adding the sum of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering, a sum of (Rs.7,000/- x 3) Rs.21,000/- towards loss of income
- 51 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters during laid up period and a sum of Rs.10,000/- conveyance, food and attendant charges etc. and also a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities, the total compensation is calculated at Rs.2,52,200/- as below:
Sl. Awarded Awarded
Heads
No. by the Tribunal by this Court.
1. Loss of future earning Rs.1,20,960/- Rs.1,51,200/-
2. Spl. Diet, conveyance Rs.4,000/- Rs.10,000/-
& attendant charges
3. Loss of income during Rs.12,800/- Rs.21,000/-
laid up period and rest
for 2 months
4. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- Rs.40,000/-
5. Loss of amenities and Rs.25,000/- Rs.30,000/-
unhappiness in life.
Total Rs.1,92,760/- Rs.2,52,200/-
Enhanced amount Rs.59,440/-
39. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of
Rs.1,93,000/- and therefore the petitioner would be entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.59,440/-.
- 52 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters Re: MFA No.201294/2017 and MFA No.201455/2017 (MVC No.1496/2013)
40. The petitioner herein Muttu @ Muttappa is aged about 28 years and working as a coolie and therefore the appropriate multiplier would be 17. He had suffered fracture of right tibia, fracture of the clavicle bone, fracture of left femur and the evidence shows that his hip movement is restricted. The Tribunal has considered the nature of the disability in length and the PW12 who assessed the disability opined that the disability of the petitioner is about 10% to 15% related to right upper limb and 22% to 25% related to the right lower limb and 20% to 30% to the left lower limb. Taking into consideration, the nature of the injuries suffered, disability and the avocation of the petitioner, we hold that the functional disability of the petitioner is at 20%. Therefore, the future loss of income is calculated as Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 17 x 20% = Rs.2,85,600/-. By adding a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.10,000/-
- 53 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters conveyance, attendants charges, nourishment etc., a sum of Rs.21,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities in life and also a sum of Rs.92,780/- towards the medical expenses, the total sum of Rs.4,89,380/- is awarded to him as against the sum of Rs.4,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Awarded by
Sl. Awarded
Heads the
No. by this Court.
Tribunal
1. Loss of future earning Rs.2,14,200/- Rs.2,85,600/-
2. Sp. Diet, conveyance Rs.31,000/- Rs.10,000/-
& attendant charges
3. Loss of income during Rs.18,200/- Rs.21,000/-
laid up period and
rest for two months
4. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- Rs.50,000/-
5. Loss of amenities and Rs.25,000/- Rs.30,000/-
unhappiness in life
6. Towards medical Rs.92,780/- Rs.92,780/-
expenses
Total Rs.4,11,180/- Rs.4,89,380/-
Enhanced amount Rs.78,385/-
- 54 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters Re: MFA No.201295/2017 and MFA No.201456/2017 (MVC No.1497/2013)
41. The petitioner herein Chandrashekar happens to be a coolie, aged about 24 years and he had suffered fracture of the mandible. The Tribunal has considered the disability of the petitioner at 15%. Therefore the functional disability is taken at 7%. The Tribunal has taken the disability at 7% which we do not find any reason to interfere with. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.7,000/- x 7% x 12 x 18 = Rs.1,05,840/-. In addition the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards food, attendants charges, conveyance etc., Rs.21,000/- loss of income during laid up period and a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities. The petitioner herein is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,06,840/- as against a sum of Rs.1,71,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and therefore the petitioner would be entitle for an enhanced compensation of Rs.25,840/-.
- 55 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters Awarded Sl. Awarded Heads by the No. by this Court.
Tribunal
1. Loss of future earning Rs.1,05,840/- Rs.1,05,840/-
2. Sp. Diet, conveyance & Rs.4,000/- Rs.10,000/-
attendant charges
3. Loss of income during Rs.6,800/- Rs.21,000/-
laid up period and rest for one month
4. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- Rs.40,000/-
5. Loss of amenities and Rs.25,000/- Rs.30,000/-
unhappiness in life Total Rs.1,71,000/- Rs.2,06,840/-
Enhanced amount Rs.35,840/-
Re: MFA No.201296/2017 (MVC No.1498/2013)
42. The petitioner herein had suffered simple injuries as seen from Ex.P4 the wound certificate. Therefore a sum of Rs.6,500/- awarded by the Tribunal do not require any interference by this Court.
- 56 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters Re: MFA No.201297/2017 & MFA No.201458/2017 (MVC No.1499/2013).
43. The petitioner herein- Arjun happens to be a coolie, aged about 21 years and he had suffered fracture of the clavicle. The Tribunal has rightly considered that there is no functional disability to the petitioner after assessing the medical evidence available on record and also the testimony of the medical officer who was examined i.e. PW10. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.62,800/- to him. We find that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of food, conveyance and attendant charges and a sum of Rs.14,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period and a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the loss of amenities in life. Thus, he is entitled for a total sum, of Rs.1,04,000/- as against a the sum of Rs.63,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
- 57 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters Awarded Sl. Awarded by Heads by the No. this Court.
Tribunal
1. Pain and suffering Rs.32,000/- Rs.50,000/-
2. Spl. Diet, conveyance Rs.4,000/- Rs.10,000/-
and attendant charges
3. Loss of income during Rs.6,800/- Rs.14,000/-
laid up period and rest for 1 month
4. Loss of amenities and Rs.20,000/- Rs.30,000/-
unhappiness in life
Total Rs.63,000 Rs.1,04,000/-
Enhanced amount Rs.41,000/-
Re: MFA No.201298/2017 (MVC No.1500/2013)
44. The petitioner herein happens to be the driver of the Tata Ace. He has contributed negligence to the extent of 50% and therefore he is entitled for the remaining 50% only. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards the minor injuries suffered by him and therefore we do not find any reason to interfere in the same. Thus he is entitled to a sum of Rs 3,000/- from respondent No.2.
- 58 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters Re: MFA No.200952/2017 (MVC No.195/2014).
45. The petitioners herein are the wife, children and parents of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 24 years and it was contended that he was a driver. There is absolutely no material on record to show that he was a driver and therefore the notional income has to be considered by this Court. The Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner and therefore it had not assessed any compensation. Considering the age of the petitioner, who was aged about 24 years, the appropriate multiplier would be 18. Hence, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.7,000/- and there shall be an enhancement towards the future prospects to the extent of 40%. Therefore, the effective multiplicand would be Rs.7,000/- + Rs.2,800/- = Rs.9,800/-. By adopting multiplier of 18 and deducting 1/4 towards his personal expenses, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.9,800/- x 12 x 18 x 3/4 = Rs.15,87,600/-.
- 59 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters
46. By adding the compensation under the conventional heads Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and also towards loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/-, the petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.16,57,600/- under the following heads:
Awarded Sl. Awarded by Heads by the No. this Court.
Tribunal
1. Loss of - Rs.15,87,600/-
dependency
2. Towards loss of - Rs.15,000/-
estate
3. Towards funeral - Rs.15,000/-
expenses
4. Loss of - Rs.40,000/-
consortium Total - Rs. 16,57,600/-
Re: MFA No.200953/2017(MVC No.196/2014):
47. The petitioners herein are the wife, two daughters and two sons of deceased. They contend that the deceased was aged about 36 years working as a driver, but there is absolutely no material on record to
- 60 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters show that he was working as a driver. Hence, the notional income is considered at Rs.7,000/- per month and hence the petitioners being the dependents are entitled for compensation. The effective multiplier would be 15. By adding the future prospects at 40%, the multiplicand would be Rs.9,800/-. Therefore the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.9,800/- x 12 x 3/4 x 15 = Rs.13,23,000/-.
48. By adding the compensation under the conventional heads Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, the petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.13,93,000/- under the following heads:
Awarded Awarded by
Sl.
Heads by the this
No.
Tribunal Court.
1. Loss of dependency - Rs. 13,23,000/-
2. Towards loss of estate - Rs.15,000/-
3. Towards funeral expenses - Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium - Rs.40,000/-
Total - Rs. 13,93,000/-
- 61 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters
49. In the result, the appeals deserve to be allowed in part. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER The appeals are allowed in part.
The petitioner in MVC No.1500/2013 is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation from respondent No.2. The petition as against respondent No.3 is dismissed. In all other petitions, the petitioners therein are entitled for compensation as below:
Awarded by Awarded
MFA Nos.
the by this
(MVC Nos)
Tribunal Court.
MFA No.201452/2017 Rs.14,07,000/- Rs.11,82,500/-
MFA No.201291/2017
(MVC No.1493/2013)
MFA No.201292/2017 Rs.7,000/- Rs.7,000/-
(MVC No.1494/2013)
MFA No.201454/2017 Rs.1,92,760/- Rs.2,52,200/-
MFA No.201293/2017
(MVC No.1495/2013)
MFA No.201455/2017 Rs.4,11,180/- Rs.4,89,380/-
MFA No.201294/2017
(MVC No.1496/2013)
- 62 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB
MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters MFA No.201456/2017 Rs.1,71,000/- Rs.2,06,840/-MFA No.201295/2017
(MVC No.1497/2013) MFA No.201296/2017 Rs.6,500/- Rs.6,500/- (MVC No.1498/2013) MFA No.201458/2017 Rs.63,000/- Rs.1,04,000/-MFA No.201297/2017
(MVC No.1499/2017) MFA No.201298/2017 Rs.6,000/- Rs.6,000/- (MVC No.1500/2013) MFA No.200952/2017 - Rs.16,57,600/- (MVC No.195/2014) MFA No.200953/2017 - Rs.13,93,000/- (MVC No.196/2014) All enhanced compensation and the compensation in MVC No.195 and 196 of 2014 shall bear an interest of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.
In all petitions (except MVC No.1500/2013) the interse liability of respondent No.1 and 2 of the one part and that of respondent No.3 of the other part is held to be 50% each.
However, respondent No.1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation jointly and severally to the petitioners of all the petitions except MVC No.1500/2013. The respondent No.2 is at liberty to
- 63 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters recover any compensation paid by it in excess of its interse liability (50%) from the respondent No.3.
The respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify the respondent No.1.In MVC No.195/2014, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled for 25% each and petitioner Nos. 3
and 4 are entitled for 15% each and petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are entitled for 10% each of the compensation amount.
The entire compensation amount of petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and 50% of the compensation amount of petitioner No.1 be released to them through their SB Account. 50% of the compensation amount of the petitioner Nos.1 and entire compensation amount of petitioner Nos.2 and 6 be deposited in FD in any Nationalised Bank of their choice for a period of 4 years or their attainment of majority whichever is later.
In MVC No.196/2014, petitioner No. 1 is entitled for 40% and petitioner Nos. 2, 3,4 and 5 are entitled for 15% each of the compensation amount.
Out of compensation amount entitled by petitioners, 50% of petitioner No.1 and entire
- 64 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8634-DB MFA No. 201294 of 2017 and connected matters compensation of petitioner Nos.2,3,4 and 5 be deposited in FD in any Nationalized Bank of their choice for a period of 4 years or their attainment of majority whichever is later. Petitioner No.1 is at liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on the FD of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 for their benefit for every quarter.
Balance amount be released in favour of petitioner No.1 through SB Account.
In remaining matters, the orders of Tribunal regarding apportionment and fixed deposit remain unaltered.
Amount in deposit in the appeals filed by the Insurance company shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10