Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Ranjitha Ravi on 22 September, 2020
Bench: Alok Aradhe, H T Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
M.F.A. NO. 4422/2017(MV)
C/W
M.F.A.No.6164/2017(MV)
IN MFA No.4422/2017
BETWEEN:
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office,
#144, Subharam Complex,
M.G.Road, Bangalore-560 001.
Rep. by its Administrative Officer,
C.K.Parimala.
... Appellant
(By Sri. Lakshminarasaiah., Adv. For
Sri. B.C.Seetharama Rao, Adv.)
AND:
1. Smt. Ranjitha Ravi,
Aged about 34 years,
W/o Late. Ravi K.S. @ Ravikumar.
2. Chi.R.Shreyash,
Aged about 6 years,
S/o Late. Ravi K.S. @ Ravikumar,
Since minor, Rep. by his mother
2
And natural guardian the
First respondent herein.
3. Sri.R.Shivamurthy,
Aged about 62 years,
S/o Late. R.V.Rudrappa,
4. Smt. Meenakshamma,
Aged about 50 years,
W/o R.Shiva Murthy,
All are residing at No.47,
I Cross, Belmar Layout,
Nagasandra Post,
Bangalore-560 057.
Permanent R/o
Kadukatte Village,
Bhadravathi Tq,
Shivamogga District.
5. M/s Max Oven Tech India Pvt., Ltd.,
Plot No. 432/B, 4th Main,
4th Phase, Peenya Industrial Area,
Bangalore-560058.
(RC Holder of Car No.KA.04-MQ-2611)
... Respondents
(By Sri.Shripad V Shastri, Adv. For R1 to R4:
Service of Notice to R5 is deemed to complete
v/o dated:23.08.2018)
---
This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the Judgment and award dated 18.03.2017 passed in
MVC No.4402/2015 on the file of the XIX Additional Small
Causes Judge & MACT, Bengaluru, awarding compensation of
Rs.29,70,600/- with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of
petition till its realization.
3
IN MFA No.6164/2017
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Ranjitha Ravi,
W/o Late. Ravi K.S. @ Ravikumar.
Aged about 34 years,
2. R.Shreyash,
S/o Late. Ravi K.S. @ Ravikumar,
Aged about 6 years,
3. Sri.R.Shivamurthy,
S/o Late. R.V.Rudrappa,
Aged about 62 years.
4. Smt. Meenakshamma,
W/o R.Shiva Murthy,
Aged about 50 years.
Since appellant No.2 is minor,
Rep. by his mother
And natural guardian Ranjitha Ravi.
All are residing at No.47,
I Cross, Belmar Layout,
Nagasandra Post,
Bangalore-73.
Permanent Residents of
Kadukatte Village,
Bhadravathi Taluk,
Shivamogga District.
... Appellants
(By Sri.Shripad V Shastri, Adv.)
AND:
1. M/s Max Oven Tech India Pvt., Ltd.,
Plot No. 432/B, 4th Main,
4th Phase, Peenya Industrial Area,
Bangalore-560058.
4
2. National Insu. Co. Ltd.,
No.144, Shubharam Complex,
M.G. Road, Bangalore-01.
...Respondents
(By Sri. Lakshminarasaiah, Adv. For
Sri. B.C.Seetharama Rao, Adv. For R2)
This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) MV Act,
against the judgment and award dated; 18.03.2017 passed
in MVC No.4402/2015 on the file of the XIX Additional SCJ,
MACT and XLI ACMM at Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim
petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
These M.F.As. coming on for admission through video
conference, this day, H.T.Narendra Prasad J., delivered the
following:
JUDGMENT
M.F.A.No.4422/2015 has been filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) by the insurance company whereas, M.F.A.No.6164/2017 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. Since, both the appeals arise out of the same accident as well as a common judgment, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
5
2. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that on 20.08.2015 at about 6.45 a.m., the deceased Ravi @ Ravikumar was proceeding in company's car bearing registration No.KA-04/MQ-2611 with driver towards Bengaluru from Chowdeshwari temple, Sigandur on B.H. road NH-206. When they reached near Madenur Bovi colony, in front of Bricks factory, Tiptur the driver of the car drove the same at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the car and hit the road-side tree. Due to the impact, deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of accident and was working as Service Engineer at Oven Tech India Private Limited and was earning Rs.21,000/- p.m. and the claimants 6 were dependants of the deceased. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.
4. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have appeared and the respondent No.2 filed the written statement in which the averments made in the petition regarding the age, avocation and income of the deceased were denied. It was pleaded that the petition is bad for contravention of Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of the Act. It was further pleaded that the claimants have to establish the rash and negligent act of the driver of the car. It was further pleaded that the police records reveals that the car was gifted to the deceased by his employer and as on the date of the accident the deceased was the owner of the car and since the deceased stepped into the shoes of the RC owner and the deceased himself was the owner and owner is not a third party, his legal representatives are not entitled for compensation. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the claim petition.
7
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 - wife of the deceased as PW-1 and the employer of the deceased as PW-2 and got exhibited 29 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P29. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, an officer of the insurance company was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited 10 documents as Ex.R1 to R-8(a). The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.29,70,600/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount. Being aggrieved, the insurance company has filed MFA No.4422/2015 and the claimants have filed MFA No.6164/2017.
8
6. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the Director of M/s.Max Oven Tech Private Limited who was the employer of the deceased has gifted the car in question to the deceased. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Secondly, when the insurance company had contacted the respondent No.5 with regard to the ownership of the car, one Mr.M.Vijay Kumar (R.W.1) had clearly stated in reply to the notice under Section 133 of the Act, that the car was transferred to Mr.Ravi Kumar, deceased, prior to the accident. Further, even in the police report, it has been recorded that the car was transferred to Mr.Ravi Kumar. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to prove the fact that the car involved in the accident was transferred to Mr.Ravi Kumar, the deceased in the case. Thirdly, RC continued in the name of the company. Hence, the RC owner is responsible for payment of compensation. To that effect he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 9 the case of 'STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS vs. CH.GANDHI' (2013) 5 SCC 111.
Fourthly, even the wife of the deceased has admitted in Ex.P5 inquest panchanama that the car was gifted by the company to her husband. Hence, the insurance was in the name of the Company. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
7. In respect of quantum of compensation is concerned, he has pointed out that as per Ex.P11 - salary certificate, the income of the deceased is shown as Rs.14,300/-, but in the pay-slips as per Ex.P11, the net monthly income is shown as Rs.10,709/- for the months of April 2015, June, 2015 and July, 2015 and Rs.13,209/- for the month of May, 2015, but the Tribunal is not justified in taking the gross income as Rs.14,300/- per month. He further contended that the Tribunal, while calculating loss of dependency has wrongly considered addition of 50% towards future prospects contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble 10 Apex Court in the case of 'NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS' AIR 2017 SC 5157. He further submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal on the conventional heads is on the higher side. Lastly, for the accident of the year 2015, the interest awarded at 9% p.a. is on the higher side. Hence, sought for allowing the appeal filed by the insurance company and dismissal of the appeal filed by the claimants.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that not just the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, but even the Insurance Policy of the vehicle continues to be in the name of M/s. M/s.Max Oven Tech India Pvt. Limited. There is no evidence to show that the car was ever transferred to Mr.Ravi Kumar. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the 11 compensation. Secondly, as per the salary certificate at Ex.P10 it is mentioned that deceased was earning Rs.14,300/- per month. As per pay-slip Ex.P11 the gross income is shown as Rs.14,300/- per month. PW-2 who is the employer of the deceased has deposed that in addition to the salary, the deceased was getting Rs.6,700/- allowance. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.14,300/-. Thirdly, the deceased was working as a permanent employee, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered addition of 50% towards future prospects. Fourthly, since there are four dependents, Tribunal was not justified in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards the personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/4th. Fifthly, the compensation granted under the conventional heads is on the lower side. Lastly, the Tribunal has rightly granted interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Hence, sought for allowing the 12 appeal filed by the claimants and dismissal of the appeal filed by the Corporation.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. It is not in dispute that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. As per the evidence of the parties and the documents produced by the claimants, it is not in dispute that the RC book is continued in the name of the company and also at the relevant time the insurance policy was in the name of the company. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (supra), the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the insurance company.
10. In respect of quantum is concerned, admittedly, the deceased was aged about 32 years and even though claimants have claimed that he was earning Rs.21,000/- 13 per month, but as per the salary certificate at Ex.P10 the income of the deceased was shown as Rs.14,300/- per month. Even as per the salary slips produced at Ex.P11 the gross salary of the deceased is shown as Rs.14,300/- per month. Taking into consideration of the same, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.14,300/-. As per the evidence of the parties it is very clear that the deceased was having a permanent job. Therefore, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the Tribunal has rightly considered addition of 50% towards future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.21,450/-. Since there are four dependents, 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.19,662/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 32 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 16 has to be adopted.
Rs.19,662 x 12 x 16 = Rs.37,75,104/-.
14Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to Rs.37,75,104/- on account of loss of dependency. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Supreme Court in 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANU RAM' 2018 ACJ 2782, the first claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- as loss of spousal consortium, claimant No. 2 is entitled to Rs.40,000/- as loss of parental consortium and claimant Nos. 3 and 4 are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each as loss of filial consortium. Thus, the total amount of compensation under this head is assessed at Rs.1,60,000/- In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.39,65,104/-, which shall be deposited by the insurance company. Since the accident is of the year 2015, the interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. is on the higher side. Hence, the same is fixed at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. 15
The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith.
Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-