Karnataka High Court
Reliance General Insurance vs Sri Sampath Kumar on 18 June, 2019
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna, K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
M.F.A. NO.4232 OF 2017 (MV)
BETWEEN :
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
NO.28, 5TH FLOOR
CENTENARY BUILDING, M. G. ROAD
BENGALURU 560001
NOW REPRESENTED BY
MANAGER LEGAL.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. SRI SAMPATH KUMAR
S/O LATE THAMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
2. SMT SHANTHAMMA
W/O SAMPATH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT KATTAGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE
MANDUR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU 560 049.
3. SRI A M NARASIMHA MURTHY
S/O MUNIYALLAPPA
MAJOR, R/O AREBANNIMANGALA
2
VILLAGE, BUDIGERE POST,
JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU 560064.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P. S. KAILAS SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.03.2017 PASSED
IN MVC NO.2069/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU(SCCH-17),
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.20,67,329/- WITH INTEREST
AT 9% P.A. FORM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION A/W. I.A. THIS
DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for admission so as to also consider I.A. No.1 of 2018 filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 - claimants, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.
2. The insurance company has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No.2069 of 2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, 'Tribunal', for short) Bengaluru dated 04.03.2017.
3
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.
4. The respondent - claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Act') seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of the death of their son Sharan Kumar in a road traffic accident. According to the claimants, on 26.12.2015 at about 11.30 a.m. Sharan Kumar was proceeding as a pillion rider on motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-53/X-5617 near Ramenahalli, Channarayanapatna Hobli, Devenahalli taluk. At that time, a tractor-trailer bearing Reg. No.KA-50/T-689 and 690 came from Budigere side in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and turned towards Ramenahalli without any signal or indication. In the process, the trailer dashed against the motor cycle, as a result, the rider and pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. Sharan was shifted to Profile Multi-speciality Hospital, Bengaluru, but he succumbed to injuries on 04.01.2016 while under 4 treatment. Contending that their son, Sharan was a healthy person, studying First year Bachelor of Engineering and that they had lost him on account of the accidental injuries suffered by him, his parents filed the claim petition seeking compensation against the owner and driver of the tractor - trailer as well as the insurer.
5. In response to the claim petition, the first respondent owner of the vehicle appeared and filed his written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition by contending that the claim petition be dismissed. Second respondent insurance company also appeared through its counsel and filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contending that the rider of the motor cycle had contributed to the cause of the accident and the negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle was on the higher side and the matter was contested on all grounds by filing an application under Section 170 of the Act. The insurer sought dismissal of the claim petition. 5
6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration :
1. Whether petitioners prove that on 26.12.2015 at about 11.30 a.m. when the deceased riding pillion was proceeding towards village from Koramangala on motorcycle, bearing No.KA-53/X-5617 ridden by his friend Anil Kumar near Ramanahalli village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore District, met with an accident, sustained injuries and succumbs to the same due to actionable negligence on part of driver of tractor-trailer bearing No.KA-50/T-689 and KA-53/T-690 as alleged?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
7. In support of their case, the first claimant examined himself as P.W.1; one Sri Anil Kumar was examined as P.W.2, 17 documents were produced on behalf of the claimants, which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-17. While the respondents let-in evidence of R.W.1 and 2 and produced three documents which were marked as 6 Exs.R-1 to R-3. On the basis of the said evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,67,329/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the insurer has preferred this appeal.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant - insurer and learned counsel for the respondent
- claimants and perused the material on record.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant insurer made a two-fold submission. Firstly, he contended that the driver of the tractor-trailer was not duly licenced to drive the vehicle, though the tractor is a light motor vehicle, but nevertheless, a transport vehicle, but the driver of the tractor did not have a transport endorsement. He had only a licence to drive a light motor vehicle. In the circumstances, there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, and hence, the Tribunal could not have fastened the liability on the insurance company. He next contended that the award of compensation of 7 Rs.20,67,329/- to the claimants is exorbitant. That the compensation awarded on the head of loss of dependency, towards loss of love and affection, towards funeral expenses are on the higher side. Therefore, this Court may re-assess the compensation and scale down the same. He further contended that the award of interest at 9% p.a. is on the higher side, as this Court in the normal course would award only 6% p.a., and therefore, there may be scaling down of the rate of interest to be awarded in this appeal. Hence, he prayed for allowing the appeal filed by the insurer.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
- claimants supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal and contended that having regard to the latest dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, it is not necessary for the driver of a light motor vehicle to have an additional transport endorsement when he has to drive a 8 transport vehicle in the class of light motor vehicle. He contended that the insurance company cannot raise the said contention, in view of the aforesaid dictum. He further submitted that the award of compensation is just and proper, and therefore, the same would not call for any interference in this appeal.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the following points would arise for our consideration :
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the insurance company to satisfy the award passed in the instant case?
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs.20,67,329/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to the respondent claimants?
3. What order?
12. The fact that Sharan Kumar died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 26.12.2015 when the tractor - trailer hit the motor bike on which he was 9 proceeding as a pillion rider has been established. The controversy is with regard to the fastening of the liability on the insurance company. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant - insurer is that the driver of the tractor - trailer was not duly licenced, inasmuch as he possessed the licence to drive a light motor vehicle without any transport endorsement. But, in the instant case, he was driving a tractor - trailer which is a transport vehicle. But the said contention would have to be rejected by relying on the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan, referred to above, wherein it has been held that once a licence is issued to drive a light motor vehicle, it would also be a specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kgs. That insertion of 'transport vehicle' category in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act has no effect, as a 'transport vehicle' is also covered in the class of 'light motor vehicle' if such a vehicle comes within 10 the definition and class of 'light motor vehicle'. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is not necessary for the driver of a light motor vehicle to also seek a transport endorsement on the driving licence. In the circumstances, it is held that in the instant case the driver of the tractor - trailer was duly licenced and that the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company. Hence, point No.1 is answered against the insurer.
13. This takes us to the next point, namely, with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,67,329/- in the following terms :
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs. 16,20,000/-
2. Towards loss of love and Rs. 1,00,000/-
affection
3. Towards funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-
4. Towards medical expenses Rs. 3,22,329/-
Total Rs. 20,67,329/-11
The claimants have established that their son Sharan Kumar was studying in First year Bachelor of Engineering and that on account of his premature death, they have lost in their son a glorious career and also future support during their evening years. The Tribunal has taken into consideration all these aspects and has awarded a sum of Rs.16,20,000/- on the head of loss of dependency by assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m. Even though the deceased was studying in First year Engineering Course, the fact that he would have ultimately gone on to earn a good monthly income, but the unfortunate and premature death in the road traffic accident, cannot be ignored. Even in the case of the death of a coolie in respect of an accident which has occurred in the year 2015, a sum of Rs.9,000/- is assessed as the notional income. In the instant case, the Tribunal has assessed Rs.10,000/- p.m. as the notional income, which, we find is very reasonable. 50% of the same has been considered towards future prospects, which is also just and proper as the deceased Sharan was only 22 years 12 of age and he was already studying a professional course, namely, Bachelor of Engineering. Since it is a case of a death of a bachelor, 50% of the notional earnings has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, it is Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/- = Rs.15,000/- / 2 = Rs.7,500/-. The annual income would be by multiplying the same by 12 and by applying the multiplier of '18', the compensation on the head of loss of dependency would be Rs.16,20,000/-, which we find is just and proper. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which we find is on the higher side, particularly, having regard to the latest dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 as well as Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram and Others, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, in the context of loss of the son, on the head of loss of love and affection compensation of Rs.30,000/- to each claimant could be awarded, totalling Rs.60,000/- instead of 13 Rs.1,00,000/-. Towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- is awarded and towards loss of estate another sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded. A sum of Rs.3,22,329/- awarded towards medical expenses by the Tribunal is retained.
Thus, the total compensation is as under :
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs. 16,20,000/-
2. Towards loss of love and Rs. 60,000/-
affection
3. Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
4. Towards medical expenses Rs. 3,22,329/-
5. Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs. 20,32,329/-
The aforesaid compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. Hence, the compensation is reduced by Rs.35,000/- only.
14. Thus, the appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent only.
The amount in deposit to be transmitted to the Tribunal.
14
The insurance company to deposit the balance compensation amount with upto date interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Parties to bear their respective costs. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A. No.1 of 2018 stands disposed.
Office to return the LCR to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE hnm