Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co., Ltd., vs Shivanagouda Virupaxagouda Patil, on 17 September, 2019
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24481/2012(MV)
C/w.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NOs.24479/2012,
24483/2012, 24484/2012, 21955/2013, 21957/2013,
24477/2012, 21952/2013, 22178/2013, 21951/2013,
21956/2013, 23931/2012, 24279/2012, 21954/2013,
23932/2012, 24480/2012, 24482/2012, 24476/2012,
24478/2012, 21953/2013, 22179/2013, 21612/2013,
21613/2013, 21614/2013, 23403/2012, 23404/2012,
22334/2013, 22335/2013, 22336/2013, 22337/2013 and
23151/2012 (MV)
MFA NO. 24481 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REP: BY ITS BRANCH OFFICE,
MOKTALI BUILDING OPP: KSRTC
HANGAL ROAD, HAVERI,
NOW REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
N K COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. PUTTAPPA S/O RAMANNA MANNUR
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O KARAJAGI, TQ: HAVERI,
2. SMT. YALLAVVA W/O YALLAPPA HARAKANAL
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
TQ: DIST: HAVERI,
3. SURESH LAXMAN VADONI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF KA.27/4329
R/O KARJAGI, TQ: DIST: HAVERI,
... RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS NO. 1 & 2 ARE SERVED;
R3 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25-07-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.202/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,02,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALISATION.
MFA NO.24479 OF 2012
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
N K COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PUTAPPA @ BASAVARAJ
S/O SHANMUKHAPPA BADAD
AGE : 46 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O.KARAJAGI, TQ : HAVERI.
3
2. SHAKUNTALA @ NEELAMMA W/O PUTTAPPA BADAD
AGE : 29 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEWIFE
R/O.KARAJAGI, TQ : HAVERI.
3. IMAM HUSSIAN S/O CHAMANSAB SUNKAD
AGE : MAJOR, OCC : DRIVER,
R/O.KARJAGI, TQ & DIST : HAVERI.
4. SURESH LAXMAN VADONI,
AGE : MAJOR, OCC : OWNER OF PASSENGER
MAXI CAB BEARING NO.KA-27/4329
R/O.KARJAGI, TQ & DIST : HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUNITA P KALASOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 -HELD SUFFICIENT; R3 - DISPENSED WITH; R4 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09-07-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1247/2011 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT
(FAST TRACK) HAVERI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
RS.8,36,164/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
MFA NO. 24483 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REP: BY ITS BRANCH OFFICE,
MOKTALI BUILDING OPP: KSRTC
HANGAL ROAD, HAVERI,
NOW REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
N K COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHASHIKALA @ SRIDEVI
W/O BHIMRAO KULKARNI
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O UDAYANAGAR, TQ: HAVERI,
4
2. SMT.MANGALA W/O PRAHLAD BHAT
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O RAYACHUR, TQ: DIST: RAYACHUR
3. SURESH LAXMANRAO VADONI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF PASSENGER
MAXI CAB, BEARING NO. KA.27/4329,
R/O. KARJAGI, TQ:DIST: HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 - SERVED;
RESPONDENT NO.2 - HELD SUFFICIENT)
--
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25-07-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.204/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,00,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALISATION.
MFA NO. 24484 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REP. BY ITS BRANCH OFFICE,
MOKTALI BUILDING OPP: KSRTC
HANGAL ROAD, HAVERI,
NOW REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
N K COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GANGAMMA, W/O FAKIRAPPA KORAVAR,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KARJAGI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
2. RATNAVVA
W/O DURGAPPA KORAVAR,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KARJAGI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
5
3. SHARADA
D/O DURGAPPA KORAVAR,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KARJAGI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
4. HANUMANT
S/O DURGAPPA KORAVAR,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KARJAGI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
5. RAJESHWARI
D/O DURGAPPA KORAVAR,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KARJAGI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
6. SURESH LAXMAN VADONI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF MAXI CAB,
BEARING NO. KA-27/4329,
R/O: KARJAGI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25-07-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.206/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,29,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALISATION.
MFA NO. 21955 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO, LTD
REPTD BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
MOKTALI BUILDING, OPP KSRTC
BUS STAND NOW REPTD BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HUBLI
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADVOCATE)
6
AND:
1. CHANNAMMA W/O JAYAPPA
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC : COOLIE,
R/O : BETU ROAD, KORAMAR ONI,
NEAR VENKATESHWAR TEMPLE
TQ. & DIST. DAVANAGERE
2. SURESH LAKSHAMANA RAO VADONI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O : KARJAGI, TQ AND DT. HAVERI
(OWNER PASSENGER MAXI CAB
BEARING NO. KA274329)
... RESPONDENTS
(R1 & R2 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09-10-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.74/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.89,850/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE
OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
MFA NO. 21957 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO, LTD
REPTD BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
MOKTALI BUILDING, OPP KSRTC
BUS STAND, NOW REPTD BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, , HUBLI
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHARADA, D/O.DURGAPPA KORAVAR
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: TAILORING,
R/O: KARJAGI, TAL AND DIST HAVERI
7
2. SURESH LAKSHAMANA RAO VADONI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O : KARJAGI, TQ AND DT. HAVERI
(OWNER PASSENGER MAXI CAB
BEARING NO. KA274329)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUNITHA P KALASOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09-10-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.47/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.42,500/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE
OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
MFA NO. 24477 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
HANGAL ROAD, HAVERI, TQ. & DT. HAVERI
NOW REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
N.K.COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.DRAKSHANAVVA
W/O LAXMAN HOMBARADI
AGE : 49 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD
R/O.KANAVALLI, TQ & DIST : HAVERI.
2. SRI.IRAPPA S/O LAXMAN HOMBARADI
AGE : 26 YEARS, OCC : AGRIL & COOLIE
R/O.KANAVALLI, TQ & DIST : HAVERI.
3. SRI.PRAKASH S/O LAXMAN HOMBARADI
AGE : 21 YEARS, OCC : AGRL & COOLIE,
R/O.KANAVALLI, TQ & DIST : HAVERI.
8
4. SURESH LAXMANRAO VADONI,
AGE : MAJOR, OCC : OWNER OF
PASSENGER MAXI CAB BEARING NO.KA27/4329
R/O.KARJAGI, TQ & DIST : HAVERI.
5. PRAKASH S/O BASAVARAJ MEDLERI,
AGE : 29 YEARS, OCC : AGRIL.,
R/O.KARJAGI, TQ & DIST : HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3 & R5; R4 - SERVED)
MFA NO. 21952 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
MOKTALI BUILDING, OPP.KSRTC BUS STAND,
NOW REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HUBLI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHANTAMMA W/O CHANNABASAPPA KALLIHAL
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KATENAHALLI, TQ: HAVERI.
2. SURESH LAKSHAMANA RAO VADONI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KARJAGI, TQ: HAVERI,
(OWNER PASSENGER MAXI CAB
BEARING NO.KA-27/4329)
... RESPONDENTS
(R1 & R2 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09-10-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.71/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,18,240/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS
REASLIATION.
9
MFA NO. 22178 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
R/BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER AT MOKTALI
BUILDING, OPP KSRTC BUS STAND
HAVERI, NOW REPTD BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HUBLI
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SAVITRI @ REKHA, W/O KUMAR @ KUMARGOUDA PATIL
AGE : 29 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O : HIREBANA AREA, LAXMESHWAR,
TAL : SHIRAHATTI, DT. GADAG
2. SURESH LAXMAN RAO VADONI
AGE : MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O: KARJAGI, TAL AND DIST HAVERI
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANAMANTH R LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:20.03.2013 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.150/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MEMBER AMACT, HAVERI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.8,23,100/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
MFA NO. 21951 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
R/BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER AT MOKTALI
BUILDING, OPP KSRTC BUS STAND
HAVERI, NOW REPTD BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HUBLI
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
10
AND:
1. VIRUPAXAPPA PUTTAPPA PUTTAPPANAVAR
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL,
R/O: KATENAHALLI, TQ:& DIST: HAVERI.
2. SURESH S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA PUTTAPPANAVAR
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/COOLIE,
R/O: KATENAHALLI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
3. SURESH LAXMAN RAO VADONI
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KARJAGI, TQ: HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M H PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:10-10-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.70/2012 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,41,500/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A, FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALISATION.
IN MFA NO. 21956 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO, LTD
REPTD BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
MOKTALI BUILDING, OPP KSRTC
BUS STAND NOW REPTD BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HUBLI
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JAYAPPA S/O YALLAPPA
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC : COOLIE,
R/O : BETU ROAD, KORAMAR ONI
NEAR VENKATESHWAR TEMPLE,
TAL AND DIST DAVANAGERE
11
2. SURESH LAKSHAMANA RAO VADONI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KARJAGI, TAL AND DIST :
HAVERI (OWNER PASSANGER MAXI
CAB BEARING NO.KA274329)
... RESPONDENTS
(R1-HELD SUFFICIENT; R2 - SERVED)
--
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09-10-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.75/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.33,127/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE
OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
MFA NO. 23931 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
R/BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
AT: MUKTALI BUILDING,
OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND,
HAVERI NOW REPTD., BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HUBLI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVANAGOUDA VIRUPAXAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HANDIGANOOR, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
2. CHANAVVA W/O CHANNABASAPPA PURAD,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: BASANKATTI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
3. PARVATEVVA W/O SHANMUKAPPA YANALLI,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: GUNDENAHALLI, TQ: BYADAGI,
DIST: HAVERI.
12
4. SURESH LAXMANRAO VADONI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KARJAGI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3; R4 - SERVED)
---
THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:03-05-2012 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.263/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,22,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALISATION.
MFA NO. 24279 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REP: BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER AT MUKTALI
BUILDING OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND HAVERI,
REPTD. BY ITS DIVNL. MANAGER, UNITED
INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. N. K. COMPLEX,
2ND FLOOR KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, NOW
REP: BY ITS SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DHARWAD
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.CHIKKAPPA GUDDAPPA MALAGI
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O HALASUR TQ: DIST:HAVERI, NOW AT
C/O MSANJULA HANUMANTAPPA BESTAR
GANGADHAR NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI
2. SMT. PARAVVA W/O CHIKKAPPA MALAGI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O HALASUR TQ:DIST: HAVERI, NOW AT
C/O MSANJULA HANUMANTAPPA BESTAR
GANGADHAR NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBLI.
13
3. SURESH LAXMAN VADONI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF PASSENGER
MAXI CAB BEARING NO.KA.27/4329,
R/O KARJAGI, TQ:DIST: HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GODE NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
R3 - HELD SUFFICIENT)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09-05-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.527/2011 ON THE FILE OF III-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MEMBER, MACT, DHARWAD, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.3,90,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 8% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS
REALISATION.
MFA NO. 21954 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH,
MANAGER, MOKTALI BUILDING,
OPP.KSRTC BUS STAND,
NOW REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HUBLI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHARWANKUMAR S/O SURESH PUTTAPPANAVAR
AGE: 2 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER
M/G JYOTI W/O SURESH PUTTAPPANAVAR,
R/O: KATENAHALLI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
2. SURESH LAKSHAMANA RAO VADONI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KARJAGI, TQ: HAVERI,
(OWNER PASSENGER MAXI CAB
BEARING NO.KA-27/4329)
... RESPONDENTS
(R1 - SERVED; R2 - HELD SUFFICIENT)
14
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09-10-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.73/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.33,905/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE
OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
MFA NO. 23932 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
R/BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
AT: MUKTALI BUILDING,
OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND,
HAVERI NOW REPTD., BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HUBLI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVANAGOUDA VIRUPAXAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HANDIGANOOR, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
2. CHANAVVA W/O CHANNABASAPPA PURAD,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: BASANKATTI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
3. PARVATEVVA W/O SHANMUKAPPA YANALLI,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: GUNDENAHALLI, TQ: BYADAGI,
DIST: HAVERI.
4. SURESH LAXMANRAO VADONI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KARJAGI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 - R3; R4 - SERVED)
15
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:03-05-2012 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.264/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,67,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALISATION.
MFA NO. 24480 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.
N.K.COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVARAJ S/O BASAVARAJ BADAD
AGE : 23 YEARS, OCC :AGRIL & BUSINESS
R/O.KARAJAGI, TQ : HAVERI
2. IMAM HUSSAIN S/O CHAMANSAB SUNKAD
AGE : MAJOR, OCC : DRIVER,
R/O.KARJAGI, TQ & DIST :HAVERI.
3. SURESH LAXMAN VADONI,
AGE : MAJOR, OCC : OWNER OF PASSENGER
MAXI CAB, R/O.KARJAGI, TQ & DIST : HAVER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M V HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVED;
R3 - HELD SUFFICIENT)
--
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09-07-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1248/2011 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE AND
MEMBER, MACT(FAST TRACK) AT HAVERI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.83,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE
OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
16
MFA NO. 24482 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO. LTD. REP: BY ITS BRANCH
OFFICE MOKTAL BUILDING OPP: KSRTC
HANGAL ROAD, HAVERI, NOW REP: BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER N K COMPLEX,
KESHWAPUR, HUBLI
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PUTTAPPA S/O RAMANNA MANNUR
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O KARAJAGI, TQ: HAVERI,
2. SMT.YELLAVVA W/O YALLAPPA HARAKANAL
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O TQ: DIST: HAVERI.
3. SURESH LAXMAN VADONI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF PASSENGER
MAXI CAB BEARING NO. KA.27/4329,
R/O KARJAGI, TQ: DIST: HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R3 - SERVED)
--
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25-07-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.203/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,55,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALISATION.
17
MFA NO. 24476 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
N.K. COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR,
HUBLI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.DRAKSHANAVVA W/O LAXMAN HOMBARADI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KANAVALLI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
2. SRI.IRAPPA S/O LAXMAN HOMBARADI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL., & COOLIE,
R/O: KANAVALLI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
3. PRAKASH S/O LAXMAN HOMBARADI,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL., & COOLIE,
R/O: KANAVALLI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
4. SURESH LAXMAN VADONI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF
PASSENGER MAXI CAB
BEARING NO. KA-27/4329,
R/O: KARJAGI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3; R4 - SERVED)
--
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09-07-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.145/2011 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER,
MACT (FAST TRACK) HAVERI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION
OF RS.4,45,896/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A.,
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
18
MFA NO. 24478 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
N.K. COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.SHAKUNTALA @ NEELAMMA W/O PUTTAPPA BADAD,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: KARAJAGI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
2. SMT.RATNAVVA W/O BANKAPPA KUNDUR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: BADA, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI.
3. SMT.SAVITRI W/O SUBHAS KUNDUR,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: BADA, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI.
4. RAJKUMAR S/O VEERAPPA @ IRAPPA DEVAGIRI,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NEERALAGI, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
5. IMAM HUSSAIN S/O CHAMANSAB SUNKAD,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: KARJAGI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
6. SURESH LAXMAN VADONI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF PASSENGER MAXI
CAB BEARING NO. KA-27/4329,
R/O: KARJAGI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M V HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4)
19
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09-07-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1246/2011 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE AND
MEMBER, MACT (FAST TRACK) AT HAVERI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,01,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALISATION.
MFA NO. 21953 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH,
MANAGER, MOKTALI BUILDING,
OPP.KSRTC BUS STAND,
NOW REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HUBLI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JYOTI W/O SURESH PUTTAPPANAVAR
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KATENAHALLI, TQ: HAVERI.
2. SURESH LAKSHAMANA RAO VADONI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KARJAGI, TQ: HAVERI,
(OWNER PASSENGER MAXI CAB
BEARING NO.KA-27/4329)
... RESPONDENTS
(R1-SERVED; R2 - HELD SUFFICIENT)
--
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09-10-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.72/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.79,460/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE
OF 6%P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
20
MFA NO. 22179 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
REPTD BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
MOKTALI BUILDING, OPP KSRTC
BUS STAND NOW REPTD BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HUBLI
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SAVITRI @ REKHA
W/O KUMAR @ KUMARGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
WORK, R/O : HIREBANA AREA,
LAXMESHWAR, TAL : SHIRAHATTI
2. SURESH LAKSHAMANA RAO VADONI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O : KARJAGI, TAL AND DIST HAVERI
(OWNER PASSANGER MAXI CAB
BEARING NO.KA27 4329)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANT R LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:20.03.2013 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.151/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MEMBER AMACT, HAVERI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.52,800/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
MFA NO. 21612 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. VIRUPAKSHAPPA,
S/O. PUTTAPPA PUTTAPPANAVAR
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: NIL
21
2. SURESH
S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA PUTTAPPANAVAR
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRI. COOLIE
ALL ARE R/O. KATENAHALLI
TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M H PATIL, ADVOCATE )
AND:
1. SURESH S/O. LASHMANA RAO VADONI
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. KARJAGI, TQ. & DIST. HAVERI
(OWNER OF MAXI CAB BEG. NO.KA-27/4329)
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
MOKATALI BUILDING
OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND, HAVERI
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:10-10-2012
PASSED IN MVC.NO.70/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
MFA NO. 21613 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
SHANTAMMA
W/O.CHANNABASAPPA KALLIHAL
AGE:51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KATENAHALLI, TQ. & DIST. HAVERI
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PATIL M H, ADVOCATE)
22
AND:
1. SURESH, S/O. LASHMANA RAO VADONI
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. KARJAGI, TQ. & DIST. HAVERI
(OWNER OF MAXI CAB BEG. NO.KA-27/4329)
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
MOKATALI BUILDING
OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND, HAVERI
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - SERVED)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:09-10-2012
PASSED IN MVC.NO.71/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
MFA NO. 21614 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
CHANNAMMA W/O.JAYAPPA
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O. BETU ROAD KORAMAR ONI
NEAR VENKATESHWAR TEMPLE
TQ. AND DIST: DAVANGERE
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PATIL M H, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SURESH, S/O. LASHMANA RAO VADONI
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. KARJAGI, TQ. & DIST. HAVERI
(OWNER OF MAXI CAB BEG. NO.KA-27/4329)
23
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
MOKATALI BUILDING
OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND, HAVERI
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - SERVED)
--
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:09-10-2012
PASSED IN MVC.NO.74/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
MFA NO. 23403 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAN GOUDA VIRPAXGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HANDIGANOOR,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI 581110
2. CHANNAVV W/O CHANNABASAPPA PURAD,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: BASANAKATTI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI 581110
3. PARVATEVVA W/O SHANMUKAPPA YANALLI,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
GUNDENHALLI, TALUK: BYADAGI.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B M PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SURESH LAXMANRAO VADONI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KARJAGI.
24
2. UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
MOKATALI BUILDING,
OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND, HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03-05-2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.264/2011 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
MFA NO. 23404 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAN GOUDA VIRPAXGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HANDIGANOOR,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI 581110
2. CHANNAVVA W/O CHANNABASAPPA PURAD,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: BASANAKATTI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI 581 110
3. PARVATEVVA W/O SHANMUKAPPA YANALLI,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
GUNDENHALLI, TALUK: BYADAGI.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B M PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SURESH LAXMANRAO VADONI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KARJAGI.
25
2. UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
MOKATALI BUILDING,
OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND, HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - DISPENSED WITH)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03-05-2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.263/2011 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
MFA NO. 22334 OF 2013
BETWEEN
1. PUTTAPPA S/O RAMANNA MANNUR,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: KARJAGI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
2. SMT.YALLAVVA W/O. YALLAPPA HARAKANAL,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KARJAGI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SURESH S/O LAXMANARAO VADONI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KARJAGI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE,MOKTALI BUILDING
OPP. KSRTC, HANGAL ROAD, HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
26
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25-07-2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.202/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND AMACT, HAVERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
MFA NO. 22335 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. PUTTAPPA
S/O RAMANNA MANNUR,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: KARJAGI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
2. SMT.YALLAVVA
W/O YALLAPPA HARAKANAL,
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KARJAGI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SURESH S/O LAXMANARAO VADONI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KARAJAGI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
BRANCH OFFICE, MOKTALI BUILDING,
OPP. KSRTC, HANGAL ROAD,HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
27
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25-07-2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.203/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND AMACT, HAVERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
MFA NO. 22336 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SHASHIKALA @ SHRIDEVI
W/O. BHIMRAO KULKARNI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: UDAYANAGAR, HAVERI.
2. MANGALA W/O. PRAHLAD BHAT,
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: RAYACHUR,
TQ & DIST: RAYACHUR.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SURESH S/O LAXMANARAO VADONI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KARJAGI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE,MOKTALI BUILDING
OPP. KSRTC, HANGAL ROAD,
HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
28
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25-07-2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.204/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND AMACT, HAVERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
MFA NO 22337 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. GANGAMMA
W/O. FAKKIRAPPA KORAVAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
SINCE DECEASED
APPELLANT NO.2 TO 5
COME ON RECORD AS HIS LRS.
1A. RATNAVVA
W/O DURGAPPA KORAVAR,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KARJAGI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
1B. SHARADA
D/O. DURGAPPA KORAVAR,
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KARJAGI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
1C. HANUMANT
S/O. DURAGAPPA KORAVAR,
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KARJAGI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
29
1D. RAJESHWARI
D/O. DURAGAPPA KORAVAR,
AGE: 22 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KARJAGI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SUNITHA P KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SURESH S/O LAXMANARAO VADONI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KARJAGI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE,MOKTALI BUILDING
OPP. KSRTC, HANGAL ROAD,
HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25-07-2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.206/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND AMACT, HAVERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
MFA NO. 23151 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. CHIKKAPPA S/O GUDDAPPA MALAGI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: HALASUR, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
NOW AT C/O: MANJULA HANAMANTAPPA
BESTAR, GANGADHAR NAGAR,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.
30
2. SMT.PARAVVA W/O CHIKKAPPA MALAGI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HALASUR, TQ & DIST: HAVERI,
NOW AT C/O: MANJULA HANAMANTAPPA BESTAR,
GANGADHAR NAGAR,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GODE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SURESH S/O LAXMAN VADONI,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF PASSENGER MAXI
CAB BEARING REG. NO. KA-27/4329,
R/O: KARJAGI, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, MOKTALI BLDG.
OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND, HAVERI.
REPTD., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., N.K.
COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR,
KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - SERVED)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:09-05-2012 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.527/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE III-ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, DHARWAD, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
31
COMMON JUDGMENT
MFA Nos.24481/2012, 24479/2012, 24483/2012, 24484/2012, 21955/2013, 21957/2013, 24477/2012, 21952/2013, 22178/2013, 21951/2013, 21956/2013, 23931/2012, 24279/2012, 21954/2013, 23932/2012, 24480/2012, 24482/2012, 24476/2012, 24478/2012, 21953/2013 and 22179/2013 are filed by the Insurance Company assailing the liability fastened on the Insurer, whereas MFA Nos. 21612/2013, 21613/2013, 21614/2013, 23403/2012, 23404/2012, 22334/2013, 22335/2013, 22336/2013, 22337/2013 and 23151/2012 are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, assailing the judgment and award passed by the different Tribunals in the respective batches of claim petitions as under:
Sl. MFA NO. MVC TRIBUNAL
No. NO./DATE
1. 24481/2012 202/2011/ Senior Civil Judge & AMACT,
25.07.12 Haveri
2. 24479/2012 1247/2011 District Judge & MACT (Fast
/9.7.2012 Track), Haveri
32
3. 24483/2012 204/2011/ Senior Civil Judge & AMACT,
25.07.12 Haveri
4. 24484/2012 206/2011 Senior Civil Judge & AMACT,
/25.07.12 Haveri
5. 21955/2013 74/2012 Prl. Senior Civil Judge &
/09.10.12 AMACT, Haveri
6. 21957/2013 47/2012 Prl. Senior Civil Judge &
/09.10.12 AMACT, Haveri
7. 24477/2012 146/2011 District Judge & MACT (Fast
/9.7.2012 Track), Haveri
8. 21952/2013 71/2012 Prl. Senior Civil Judge &
/09.10.12 AMACT, Haveri
9. 22178/2013 150/2012 Senior Civil Judge & AMACT,
/20.03.13 Haveri
10. 21951/2013 70/2012 Addl. Senior Civil Judge &
/10.10.12 AMACT, Haveri
11. 21956/2013 75/2012 Prl. Senior Civil Judge &
/09.10.12 AMACT, Haveri
12. 23931/2012 263/2011 Addl. Senior Civil Judge &
/3.5.2012 AMACT, Haveri
13. 24279/2012 527/2011 III Addl. Senior Civil Judge &
/9.5.2012 AMACT, Dharwad
14. 21954/2013 73/2012 Prl. Senior Civil Judge &
/09.10.12 AMACT, Haveri
15. 23932/2012 264/2011 Addl. Senior Civil Judge &
/3.5.2012 AMACT, Haveri
16. 24480/2012 1248/2011 District Judge & MACT (Fast
/9.7.2012 Track), Haveri
17. 24482/2012 203/2011/ Senior Civil Judge & AMACT,
25.07.12 Haveri
18. 24476/2012 145/2011 District Judge & MACT (Fast
/9.7.2012 Track), Haveri
19. 24478/2012 1246/2011 District Judge & MACT (Fast
/9.7.2012 Track), Haveri
33
20. 21953/2013 72/2012 Prl. Senior Civil Judge &
/09.10.12 AMACT, Haveri
21. 22179/2013 151/2012 Senior Civil Judge & AMACT,
/20.03.13 Haveri
22. 21612/2013 70/2012 Addl. Senior Civil Judge &
/10.10.12 AMACT, Haveri
23. 21613/2013 71/2012 Prl. Senior Civil Judge &
/09.10.12 AMACT, Haveri
24. 21614/2013 74/2012 Prl. Senior Civil Judge &
/09.10.12 AMACT, Haveri
25. 23403/2012 264/2011 Addl. Senior Civil Judge &
/3.5.2012 AMACT, Haveri
26. 23404/2012 263/2011 Addl. Senior Civil Judge &
/3.5.2012 AMACT, Haveri
27. 22334/2013 202/2011/ Senior Civil Judge & AMACT,
25.07.12 Haveri
28. 22335/2013 203/2011 Senior Civil Judge & AMACT,
/25.07.12 Haveri
29. 22336/2013 204/2011 Senior Civil Judge & AMACT,
/25.07.12 Haveri
30. 22337/2013 206/2011 Senior Civil Judge & AMACT,
/25.07.12 Haveri
31. 23151/2012 527/2011 III Addl. Senior Civil Judge &
/9.5.2012 AMACT, Dharwad
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents in all these appeals. Since all these appeals are arising out of the same accident, they were taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.
34
3. The ranks of the parties before the Tribunals are retained for brevity.
4. The brief facts of the case in all these cases are that, on 30.06.2011 at about 4.00 pm, when the claimants and deceased were boarded the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-27/4329 belonging to respondent- Suresh, S/o.Laxmanarao Vadoni at Karjagi village, the driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and when the vehicle came near the land of one Puttannavar on Karjagi-Haveri road, the driver of the said vehicle lost control over the vehicle and dashed to the road side tree, due to which, some of the passengers sustained injuries and some of them died. The injured claimants pleaded that due to the injuries they have lost the earning capacity, whereas the legal heirs of the deceased passengers claim that they have lost earning member of the family and they 35 are dependent on the deceased persons. Hence they claimed compensation under various heads.
5. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Tribunals, respondent-owner of the vehicle not contested the matter and remained ex-parte, whereas the respondent-Insurer appeared in all the cases and filed statement of objections independently in clubbed matters and taken a contention that all the petitions are illegal, improper and the same are not tenable under law and facts; and also denied the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the occurrence of the accident in question, the age, occupation and income of the deceased as well as injured persons as false; taken a specific plea that the driver of the maxi cab did not have any valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident to drive the vehicle; and also contended that the vehicle was not having any permit to carry the passengers and thereby the insured violated the terms 36 and conditions of the policy and there shall not be any liability on the Insurer. The Insurer has also taken a contention that the accident in question was caused due to the overloading of the passengers. The vehicle was permitted to carry only 11 + 1 passengers, but there were more than 25 passengers at the time of accident, thereby there is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and permit and therefore no liability shall be fastened on the Insurer and hence prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.
Based upon the rival pleadings, the Tribunals framed the following issues in the respective MVCs:
COMMON ISSUES IN MVC Nos.202, 203, 204 & 206 of 2011
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, there was a road accident on 30.06.2011 at about 4.00 p.m., on Karjagi-Haveri road near the land of Puttannanavar, by the driver of Maxi cab bearing registration No.KA-27/4329?
2. Whether the petitioners further prove that, the said road accident was occurred solely due to 37 the rash and negligent act of driver of Maxi cab bearing registration No.KA-27/4329?
3. Whether the petitioners prove that, Akkamma W/o: Suresh Kulkarni/ Gangavva W/o:
Ramanna Mannur/ Suresh S/o; Vasudev Kulkarni/ Durgappa S/o: Fakkirappa Koravar was died in the said accident due to the injuries sustained to him/her in the said road accident?
4. Whether R-2 proves that the driver of the above said vehicle was not holding valid and effective D.L., at the time of accident?
5. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are entitled to receive compensation? If so, to what rate and from whom?
6. What order or award?
IN MVC No.145/2011
1. Whether the petitioners prove that Laxman Hombaradi died in a road traffic accident, occurred on 30.06.2011 at about 19.00 hours on Haveri-Karjagi road, near land of Puttannanavar, due to rash and negligent driving of Maxi Cab bearing registration No.KA-27/4329 by its driver?38
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, for how much amount and from whom?
3. To what order or award?
IN MVC No.146/2011
1. Whether the petitioners prove that Rekha W/o: Prakash Medleri, died in a road traffic accident, occurred on 30.06.2011 at about 19.00 hours on Haveri-Karjagi road, near land of Puttannanavar, due to rash and negligent driving of Maxi Cab bearing registration No.KA-27/4329 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, for how much amount and from whom?
3. To what order or award?
IN MVC No.1246/2011
1. Whether the petitioners prove that Smt. Dyamavva W/o: Irappa @ Veerappa Devagiri, died in a road traffic accident, occurred on 30.06.2011 at about 4.00 p.m., on Haveri-
Karjagi road, due to rash and negligent 39 driving of Maxi Cab bearing registration No.KA-27/4329 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, for how much amount and from whom?
3. To what order or award?
IN MVC No.1247/2011
1. Whether the petitioners prove that Bharath S/o: Puttappa @ Basavaraj Badad, died in a road traffic accident, occurred on 30.06.2011 at about 4.00 p.m., on Haveri-Karjagi road, due to rash and negligent driving of Maxi Cab bearing registration No.KA-27/4329 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, for how much amount and from whom?
3. To what order or award?
IN MVC No.1248/2011
1. Whether the petitioner prove that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident, occurred on 30.06.2011 at about 19.00 hours on Haveri-Karjagi road, near land of Puttannanavar, due to rash and negligent 40 driving of Maxi Cab bearing registration No.KA-27/4329 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, for how much amount and from whom?
3. To what order or award?
IN MVC No.70/2012
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, on 30.06.2011 at about 4.00 p.m., on Karjagi- Haveri road, near Karjagi Village deceased Channamma was traveling in the vehicle respondent No.1 at that time, the driver of the respondent No.1 drove the maxi cab bearing No.KA-27/4329 with high speed, rash and negligent manner and endangers to human life and lost control over the vehicle and dashed to left side of tree and caused accident and she was died in the accident?
2. Whether respondent No.2 proves that, the driver of respondent No.1 was not holding valid D.L., at the time of accident?
3. Whether respondent No.2 proves that, the excess passengers were traveling at the time 41 of accident and respondent No.1 has violated the terms of the policy?
4. Whether petitioners are entitled the compensation? If so, what rate and against whom?
5. What order or award?
COMMON ISSUES IN MVC Nos.71 To 75/2012 & 47/2012
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, on 30.06.2011 at about 4.00 p.m., on Karjagi- Haveri road near Karjagi Village she was traveling in the vehicle respondent No.1 at the time the driver of the respondent No.1 drove the maxi cab bearing registration No.KA- 27/4329 with high speed rash and negligent manner and endangers to human life and lost control over the vehicle and dashed to left side of tree and caused accident and she sustained injuries in the accident?
2. Whether respondent No.2 proves that the driver of respondent No.1 was not holding valid D.L., at the time of accident?
42
3. Whether respondent No.2 proves that the excess passengers were traveling at the time of accident and respondent No.1 has violated the terms of the policy?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled the compensation? If so, what rate against whom?
5. What order or award?
IN MVC No.150/2012
1. Whether the petitioner prove that, there was a road accident on 30.06.2011 at about 4.00 p.m., near Karjagi Village by the driver of Maxi cab bearing its registration No.KA- 27/4329?
2. Whether the petitioner further prove that, the said road accident was occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of driver of Maxi cab bearing its registration No.KA-27/4329?
3. Whether the petitioner proves that, Kumaragouda Shankaragouda Patil was died in the said accident due to the injuries sustained to him in the said road accident? 43
4. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the driver of the above said vehicle was not holding valid and effective D.L., at the time of accident?
5. Whether the petitioner proves that, she is entitled to receive compensation? If so, to what rate and from whom?
6. What order or award?
IN MVC No.151/2012
1. Whether the petitioner prove that, there was a road accident on 30.06.2011 at about 4.00 p.m., near Karjagi Village by the driver of Maxi cab bearing its registration No.KA- 27/4329?
2. Whether the petitioner further prove that, the said road accident was occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of driver of Maxi cab bearing its registration No.KA-27/4329?
3. Whether the petitioner proves that, she had sustained injuries as shown in column No.22 of the petition due to the said road accident? 44
4. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the driver of the above said vehicle was not holding valid and effective D.L., at the time of accident?
5. Whether the petitioner proves that, she is entitled to receive compensation? If so, to what rate and from whom?
6. What order or award?
IN MVC No.263/2011
1. Whether petitioners prove that, on 30.06.2011 at 4.00 p.m., on Haveri- Karjgi Village deceased Virupaxagouda was traveling alongwith his wife Gourava in maxi cab bearing No.KA-27/4329, at that time, the driver of respondent No.1 drove the Maxi cab bearing No.KA-27/4329 with high speed rash and negligent manner and endengerous to human life and dashed to the left side tree and caused accident and Virupaxagouda was died in the accident?
2. Whether respondent No.2 proves that, the said accident was taken place due to excess 45 passengers in a Maxi cab bearing No. KA- 27/4329 at the time of accident?
3. Whether respondent No.2 proves that, the driver of respondent No.1 was not holding valid and D.L. at the time of accident?
4. Whether petitioners are entitle the compensation? If so, what rate and against whom?
5. What order or award?
IN MVC No.264/2011
1. Whether petitioners prove that, on 30.06.2011 at 4.00 p.m., on Haveri- Karjgi Village deceased Gauravva was traveling alongwith her husband Verupaxagouda in maxi cab bearing No.KA-27/4329, at that time, the driver of respondent No.1 drove the Maxi cab bearing No.KA-27/4329 with high speed rash and negligent manner and endengerous to human life and dashed to the left side tree and caused accident and Gauravva was died in the accident?
2. Whether respondent No.2 proves that, the said accident was taken place due to excess 46 passengers in a Maxi cab bearing No. KA- 27/4329 at the time of accident?
3. Whether respondent No.2 proves that, the driver of respondent No.1 was not holding valid and D.L. at the time of accident?
4. Whether petitioners are entitle the compensation? If so, what rate and against whom?
5. What order or award?
IN MVC No.527/2011
1. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è PÀÆ° JAzÀÄ ¸ÉêÁ ¤gÀvÀgÁVzÁÝUÀ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ªÉüÉ, PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ¢AzÀ GAmÁzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è ±Á±ÀévÀ CAUÀ £ÀÆå£ÀvÉ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅzÁV ¸Á©vÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉ?
2. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ PÁ®zÀ°è 40 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÁìVvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ½AzÀ wAUÀ½UÉ gÀÆ. 5000/- ¸ÀA§¼À ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©vÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉ?
3. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀ¢AzÁV ªÉÊAiÀÄÄQÛPÀ ºÁ¤UÁV ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðgÉ? ºÁVzÀÝ°è ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ªÉÆvÀ۪ɵÀÄÖ? ºÁUÀÆ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä AiÀiÁgÀÄ ¨ÁzsÀå¸ÀÜgÀÄ? 47
4. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É zÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ §rØUÉ CºÀðgÉ? ºÁVzÀÝ°è zÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ §rØAiÀÄ ªÉÆvÀ۪ɵÀÄÖ? ºÁUÀÆ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä AiÀiÁgÀÄ ¨ÁzsÀå¸ÀÜgÀÄ?
5. DzÉñÀªÉãÀÄ?
To substantiate their contention, the claimants themselves examined as witnesses and got marked various documents. The respondent-Insurer examined one RW1 and got marked the Insurance Policy at Ex.R1.
After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunals answered the issues in favour of the claimants and against the Insurer and allowed the petitions in part by awarding compensation in as under:
COMPENSATION Sl.
MVC NO. AWARDED BY THE
No.
TRIBUNALS (Rs.)
1 1246/2011 2,01,000/-
2 1247/2011 8,36,164/-
3 1248/2011 83,000/-
4 145/2011 4,45,896/-
5 146/2011 1,86,000/-
6 150/2012 8,23,100/-
7 151/2012 52,800/-
8 202/2011 2,02,000/-
9 203/2011 1,55,000/-
48
10 204/2011 2,00,000/-
11 206/2011 2,29,000/-
12 263/2011 1,22,000/-
13 264/2011 1,67,000/-
14 47/2012 42,500/-
15 527/2011 3,90,000/-
16 70/2012 141,500/-
17 71/2012 2,18,240/-
18 72/2012 79,460/-
19 73/2012 33,905/-
20 74/2012 89,850/-
21 75/2012 33,127/-
Assailing the judgment and award passed by the Tribunals, the Insurer filed some appeals challenging fastening of liability on the Insurer, whereas some of the claimants filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company Sri.Rajashekhar Arani, strenuously argued on two folds. Firstly, it is contended that the vehicle in question was driven by the driver of the vehicle without 49 possessing any valid driving licence and permit to carry the passengers in a commercial vehicle.
Secondly, on the liability point it is contended that, even otherwise if the vehicle carried the passengers with permit, the limitation is only for 11+1 = 12 passengers including the driver, but more than 12 passengers were carried by the driver of the Maxi Cab at the time of accident and hence the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is contended that the claimants shall also be diligent in boarding the over-loaded vehicle and they could have avoided boarding the vehicle due to heavy load and by boarding the said vehicle, they have also contributed some percentage of negligence. Therefore, it is contended that the liability has to be apportioned due to the contributory negligence on the part of the driver as well as the passengers. Hence the learned counsel prayed for allowing the Insurer's appeals.
50
7. Per contra, Sri. Hanumanth R. Latur, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents/ claimants contended that the vehicle is duly insured with the Insurance Company having permit and also driving licence for the driver of the vehicle and even if there is any violation of carrying more than 12 passengers, the Insurer has to satisfy the award and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
In support of his contention, the learned counsel also relied upon the following judgments:
i. Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No.2253/2018 ii. Rani and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and Others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 492 iii. Kusum Lata and Others Vs. Satbir and others reported in 2011 ACJ 926 51 iv. Smt. Savakka Vs. Shri. Mehaboob and another reported in 2016 Kant M.A.C. 39 (Kant).
On these grounds he prayed for dismissing the appeals filed by the Insurance Company.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants, who have filed appeals for enhancement, supported the arguments submitted by the learned counsel Sri. H. R. Latur and contended that the compensations awarded by the Tribunals are very meager and prayed for enhancement of compensation.
9. Learned Counsel Sri. Gode Nagaraja also produced a copy of the permit in respect of the vehicle in question apart from the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle and prayed for dismissing the appeals filed by the Insurance Company and allowing the appeals filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.
52
10. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgments and evidence on record, the points that arise for my consideration are:
i. Whether the Tribunals are not justified in fastening the liability in 12 claim petitions on the Insurance Company and remaining on the owner of the vehicle, which calls for interference?
ii. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?
iii. What order?
11. The accident in question has been established by the claimants before the Tribunals, that on 30.06.2011 at about 4.00 pm, when the claimants and deceased were traveling in the Maxi Cab bearing registration No.KA-27/4329 as passengers, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maxi Cab, the vehicle was met with an accident, due to which some of the passengers have sustained injuries and 53 some of the passengers were died in the said accident. The only controversy raised by the appellant-Insurance Company is that, the vehicle in question was the Maxi Cab which is a commercial vehicle transporting the passengers, wherein the driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence and also there is no permit for the vehicle to transport the passenger in the commercial vehicle. He also contended that there is no permit produced before the Tribunals and when there is no permit produced, the Tribunals ought not to have fastened the liability on the Insurer in 12 claim petitions and on the owner of the vehicle in the remaining claim petitions. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amrit Paul Singh (supra).
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants Sri. H. R. Latur as well as the counsel appearing for other claimants in other 54 connected appeals, have brought to the notice of this Court that there is permit for the vehicle in question, but it was not marked before the Tribunals. Based upon the evidence on record, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the Insurer in 12 claim petitions and on the owner of the vehicle in the remaining petitions. However, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that, even when there is no permit or driving licence, in view of the issuance of policy, the Insurance Company has to satisfy the award and then shall recover the same from the owner in the execution proceedings.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants produced a copy of the permit which goes to show that, on 13.11.2009, the Secretary of Karnataka State Transport Authority has issued the Endorsement of Renewal of Permit for the vehicle in question, which is valid from 20.11.2009 to 19.11.2014. 55 The vehicle in question was met with an accident on 30.06.2011, which shows that the vehicle in question had valid permit as on the date of the accident. Though the counsel for the appellants argued in respect of the driving licence, but there is no ground urged before this Court regarding the driver of the vehicle not holding valid driving licence. On the other hand, the appeals are filed only on the question of violation of the policy condition and overloading of the passengers in excess of permit. In view of holding the permit by the owner of the vehicle, the question of violation of permit under Section 66 of the Act does not arise. Now the only controversy that arises in the case is excess passengers allowed by the driver of the vehicle. Even though the Insurance Policy says that the vehicle was permitted to carry 11+1 passengers including the driver, the permit says 12+1 passengers. However, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants relied upon the judgment in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. K. M. 56 Poonam reported in 2011 AIR(SCW) 2802, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation limited to the number of persons covered by the policy, but has also to pay the compensation to excess passengers carried and recover that amount from the owner, who is actually liable.
14. In another case reported in 2016 Kant. M.A.C. 39 (Kant) in the case of Smt. Savakka Vs. Shri. Mehaboob and another, the coordinate Bench of this Court has held in Paragraph 8 of the judgment as under:
"8. It is pertinent to note that the offending vehicle was carrying 28 passengers, whereas the sitting capacity was 12. As per Ex.R-1 and R3, the passengers covered by the insurance policy are 12. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. M. Poonam (supra) which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and in the tenor of the provisions of Section 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it would be held that the 57 insurer shall be liable to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal, as regards 12 passengers to whom the insurance policy is covered, more particularly, which are the highest awards. Further, the insurance company shall deposit with the tribunal the total amount of compensation awarded in favour of the awardees and is entitled to recover the amount paid by it in excess of its liability, from the owner of the vehicle."
15. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Poonam (supra) and the judgment of this Court in the case of Savakka (supra), and as the Insurance Policy covered 11+1 passengers including the driver, though the registration certificate was issued for 12 + 1 passengers including the driver, but in view of the non-contesting the case by the owner of the vehicle, this Court is required to consider only 11 claim petitions excluding the driver. The Tribunal has fastened the liability on the Insurer only for 12 awards and for remaining 11 awards, it has directed to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, which is not 58 correct in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Poonam's case (supra). It is required to be clarified that the Insurance Company is liable to deposit the entire compensation amount for all the 22 claimants and satisfy the award and they shall take the liability for 11 awards, where the award amount is higher (which was covered under the policy) and for remaining claimants where there is lesser award amounts, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the awards and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the claimants and as against the Insurance Company.
16. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants/appellants in MFA No.21612/2013 (MVC No.70/2012) have filed the petition claiming compensation for the death of deceased Channamma. The claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as 59 agricultural coolie, whereas the Tribunal has considered the income at Rs.4,000/- per month, which is meager. The Tribunal has also not considered future prospects. Therefore, they prayed for enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the Insurer contended that the claimants, who are the husband and major son of the deceased, are not dependents on the deceased and therefore there shall not be any loss of dependency. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants contended that the claimants are entitled for the compensation towards loss of estate. In support of their case, they have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Yogesh Jain and Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No.2445 of 2018. The claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/ per month. But they have not produced any document before the Court to show where she was working and how much she was earning, when her husband and son 60 are major claimants. Such being the case, considering the income of Rs.4,500/- need not be interfered with. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Jain (supra), 50% has to be deducted towards personal living expenses. Hence, if 50% is deducted, it comes to Rs.2,250 x 12 x 9 (appropriate multiplier for the age group of 60 years) = Rs.2,43,000/- which would be the compensation towards 'loss of estate'. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in (2018 SCC Online SC 1546), the 1st claimant being the husband is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of spousal consortium' and 2nd claimant being the son is entitled to Rs.30,000/- towards 'loss of parental consortium'. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral and transportation expenses'. In all the claimants are entitled for the re-assessed compensation as under:
61
Amount(Rs.) Towards Loss of estate 2,43,000.00 Towards loss of spousal consortium 40,000.00 Towards loss of parental consortium 30,000.00 Towards funeral and transportation 15,000.00 expenses Total 3,28,000.00
17. The claimant/appellant in MFA No.21613/2013 (MVC No.71/2012) - Smt. Shantamma has contended that, she has sustained grievous injuries as per Ex.P8 - wound certificate and as per Ex.P19 - discharge card, she was hospitalized for 25 days in the first instance and thereafter for another 8 days for the 2nd time and spent huge amount towards medical and other expenses. She has examined PW7 - Dr. G. Shivappa, who opined that she was suffering from 65% physical disability to the particular parts left upper kun T-L spines and right lower limb. Though the doctor not given disability for the whole body, the Tribunal has 62 considered 15% disability to the whole body. In my opinion, the same does not calls for any interference. The claimant stated that she was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as coolie. At the time of the accident, the age of the claimant was 50 years and there is no proof of income produced by the claimant before the Court. The Tribunal has considered the notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month. But looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, taking the income of Rs.3,000/- per month is not correct. During the year 2011, even the minimum wage is Rs.125/- per day i.e., Rs.3,750/- per month. Therefore, I propose to consider Rs.4,000/- as monthly income of the claimant. If Rs.4,000/-p.m. is considered as monthly income, by considering the disability of 15% it comes to Rs.600 x 12 x 13 (appropriate multiplier for the age group of 50 years) = Rs.93,600/- which would be the compensation towards 'loss of earning capacity'. As regards 'pain and suffering', the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- which 63 is sufficient. As regards 'loss of amenities' and 'medical expenses', the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- and Rs.63,040/- which is retained. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of income during treatment period, attendant and Transportation charges' is meager and hence I propose to award Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- under the said head. In all the claimant is entitled for the re- assessed compensation as under:
Amount(Rs.) Towards Loss of earning capacity 93,600.00 Towards Pain and suffering 50,000.00 Towards loss of amenities 25,000.00 Towards medical expenses 63,040.00 Towards loss of income during 10,000.00 treatment period, attendant and transportation expenses Total 2,51,640.00
18. The claimant/appellant in MFA No.21614/2013 (MVC No.74/2012) - Smt. Channamma 64 has contended that she was working as coolie and earning Rs.6,000/- per month and she has sustained multiple injuries and suffered permanent disability. In support of his case, she has produced the wound certificate at Ex.P30 and discharge summary at Ex.P96, wherein it is seen that she was hospitalized from 01.07.2011 to 20.07.2011 at Bapuji Hospital, Davangere. Exs.P31 to Exs.P88 are the medical bills and she has examined PW7 - Dr.G.Shivappa. As per Ex.P115 - disability certificate, the doctor has opined that she has sustained 35%-40 % physical disability to right lower limb and compared to whole body 14 to 16%.
Learned counsel contended that the Tribunal has erred in taking only 5% disability even though the claimant has examined the doctor and the Tribunal has also erred in taking the notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month without any basis. Normally this Court used to consider Rs.6,000/- per month as notional income for the accidents occurred in the year 2011. Such being 65 the case, taking the notional income of Rs.3,000/- per month is very meager. Therefore, I propose to consider Rs.6,000/- per month as notional income for the claimant. The claimant has sustained fracture injury which is grievous in nature and sustained one simple injury. As per the doctor's evidence, the disability towards whole body was 14-16%. Hence, I propose to consider 15% disability to the whole body as against 5% considered by the Tribunal. 15% of Rs.6,000/- is Rs.900 x 12 x 16 (appropriate multiplier for the age group of 30 years) = Rs.1,72,800/-, which would be the compensation towards 'loss of earning'. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards 'pain and suffering', Rs.10,000/- towards 'loss of amenities' and Rs.28,850/- towards 'medical expenses', which are retained. However, Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,000/- towards 'loss of income during treatment period and attendant charges' and not awarded any compensation towards food and nourishment. By considering the notional 66 income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month, I propose to award Rs.6,000/- towards 'loss of income during treatment period' and Rs.4,000/- towards 'food, nourishment and attendant charges'. In all the claimant is entitled for the re-assessed compensation as under:
Amount(Rs.) Towards Loss of earning capacity 1,72,800.00 Towards Pain and suffering 20,000.00 Towards loss of amenities 10,000.00 Towards medical expenses 28,850.00 Towards loss of income during 6,000.00 treatment period Towards food, nourishment and 4,000.00 attendant charges Total 2,41,650.00
19. The claimants/appellants in MFA No.23403/2012 (MVC No.264/2011) have filed the petition claiming compensation for the death of their mother deceased Gouravva. The claimants contended 67 that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, whereas the Tribunal has considered the income at Rs.15,000/- per annum and awarded meager compensation towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The claimants are major son and daughters.
Therefore, there shall not be any dependency and they are entitled for loss of estate. The claimants have not produced any document to prove the income of the deceased. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I propose to consider Rs.4,000/- per month instead of Rs.15,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased was 49 years and hence the appropriate multiplier is 13. As per the judgment of Yogesh Jain (supra), if 50% is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.2,000 x 12 x 13 (appropriate multiplier) = Rs.3,12,000/-, which would be the compensation towards 'loss of estate'. The claimants being the children are entitled for Rs.30,000/- each towards 'loss of parental consortium' 68 as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd., (supra). Further, the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral and transportation expenses'. In all the claimants are entitled for the re-assessed compensation as under:
Amount(Rs.) Towards Loss of estate 3,12,000.00 Towards loss of parental consortium 90,000.00 (Rs.30,000 x 3) Towards funeral and transportation 15,000.00 expenses Total 4,17,000.00
20. The claimants/appellants in MFA No.23404/2012 (MVC No.263/2011) have filed the petition claiming compensation for the death of their father deceased Virupaxgouda. The claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/-
per month by doing agricultural work, whereas the Tribunal has considered the income at Rs.15,000/- per 69 annum and awarded meager compensation towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The claimants are major son and daughters of the deceased Virupaxgouda. Therefore, there shall not be any dependency and they are entitled for loss of estate. The income of the deceased was not proved by any documentary evidence. Therefore, I propose to consider the notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.15,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased was 56 years and hence the appropriate multiplier is 9. As per the judgment of Yogesh Jain (supra), if 50% is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.3,000 x 12 x 9 = Rs.3,24,000/-, which would be the compensation towards 'loss of estate'. The claimants being the children are entitled for Rs.30,000/- each towards 'loss of parental consortium' as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd., (supra). Further, the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards 70 'funeral and transportation expenses'. In all the claimants are entitled for the re-assessed compensation as under:
Amount(Rs.) Towards Loss of estate 3,24,000.00 Towards loss of parental consortium 90,000.00 (Rs.30,000 x 3) Towards funeral and transportation 15,000.00 expenses Total 4,29,000.00
21. The claimants/appellants in MFA No.22334/2013 (MVC No.202/2011) have filed the petition claiming compensation for the death of their sister Akkamma. The claimants contended that the deceased was working as tailor and earning Rs.7,500/-
per month, but the Tribunal has considered only Rs.3,000/- per month as the income of the deceased. The claimants have not produced any document to prove the income. In the absence of documents, I propose to consider Rs.6,000/- per month as notional 71 income. As the deceased was aged 24 years at the time accident, the appropriate multiplier is 18. The claimants are brother and sister of the deceased. Therefore, there shall not be any dependency and they are entitled for loss of estate. As per the judgment of Yogesh Jain (supra), if 50% is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.3,000 x 12 x 18 (appropriate multiplier) = Rs.6,48,000/-, which would be the compensation towards 'loss of estate'. Further, the claimants are entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards 'loss of love and affection' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral and other expenses'. In all the claimants are entitled for the re- assessed compensation as under:
Amount(Rs.) Towards Loss of estate 6,48,000.00 Towards loss of parental consortium 30,000.00 (Rs.30,000 x 3) Towards funeral and transportation 15,000.00 expenses Total 6,93,000.00 72
22. The claimants/appellants in MFA No.22335/2013 (MVC No.203/2011) filed the petition claiming compensation for the death of their mother Smt. Gangamma, who died in the same accident. In the petition filed before the Tribunal, the age of the deceased was shown as 46 years and it was stated that she was doing milk vending business along with agriculture. In the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal has considered Rs.3,000/- per month as notional income, which is not correct and hence, I propose to consider Rs.6,000/- per month. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Jain (supra), 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and if the same is deducted, it comes to Rs.3,000/-. The appropriate multiplier applicable for the age group of 46 to 50 is '13' and hence, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.4,68,000/- (Rs.3,000/- X 12 X 13 ) towards 'loss of estate'. Further the claimants are entitled to 73 Rs.30,000/- each towards 'loss of parental consortium' and also entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral and transportation expenditure'. In all the claimants are entitled for the reassessed compensation, as under:
Amount(Rs.) Towards Loss of estate 4,68,000.00 Towards loss of parental consortium 60,000.00 (Rs.30,000 x 2 = Rs.60,000) Towards funeral and transportation 15,000.00 expenses Total 5,43,000.00
23. The claimants/appellants in MFA No.22336/2013 (MVC No.204/2011) have filed the petition claiming compensation for the death of their brother deceased Suresh, who died in the same accident. It is stated in the petition that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. In the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month, which is not correct. The accident is of the year 2011. For the 74 accidents occurred during the year 2011, the Courts use to consider the income of Rs.6,000/- per month on notional basis, but the claimants themselves have stated in their petition that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and hence, I propose to consider the income as Rs.5,000/- per month. The claimants are the sisters of the deceased and they are not entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency and they are entitled for compensation towards loss of estate. The deceased died unmarried and as per the judgment in the case of Yogesh Jain (supra), 50% of the income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Since the deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age group of 35 to 40 years is '15'. Though this Court, in the case of A. Manavalagan v. A. Krishnamurty and others, reported in ILR 2004 Kar 3268, has considered 75% of the income towards personal expenses, but in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex 75 Court in the case of Yogesh Jain (supra), I propose to consider 50% of the income towards personal expenses while considering the loss of estate. If the income is considered as Rs.5000/-, 50% of the said income comes to Rs.2,500/- and after applying multiplier '15' the claimants would be entitled to Rs.4,50,000/-
(Rs.2,500/- X 12 X 15 = 4,50,000/-) towards 'loss of estate'. The claimants are the sisters of the deceased and they are entitled to Rs.30,000/- each towards 'loss of love and affection' of their brother. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral and transportation expenditure'. In all, the claimants are entitled to the reassessed compensation as under:-
Amount(Rs.) Towards Loss of estate 4,50,000.00 Towards loss of love and affection 60,000.00 (Rs.30,000 x 2) Towards funeral and transportation 15,000.00 expenses Total 5,25,000.00 76
24. The claimants/appellants in MFA No.22337/2013 (MVC No.206/2011) have filed the petition claiming compensation for the death of deceased Durgappa Korawar, who died in the same accident. The claimants are the legal representatives of deceased i.e. wife, children and mother of the deceased and they filed claim petition contending that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by agricultural and milk vending business. But they have not produced any document and in the absence of documentary evidence, I propose to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimants are five in numbers and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121, 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased.77
As regards the age of the deceased, the learned counsel for the insurer has contended that as per the postmortem report the age of the deceased was shown as 65 years, whereas the claimants contended that the age of the deceased was only 40 years. The learned counsel for claimants has also brought to the notice of the Court that the age of the mother of deceased was 58 years and the age of the wife of the deceased was 38 years and the age of the eldest daughter of the deceased was 20 years at the time of death of the deceased. Therefore, the question of considering the age of the deceased as 65% is not acceptable. The Court use to take the judicial note of the age of the mother, which was 58 years. Even if the mother of the deceased was married at her age of 18 years, definitely the age of the deceased would be 40 to 41 years. If the wife of the deceased was 38 years, the deceased must be at least 2 or 3 years elder than his wife. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I propose to 78 consider the age of the deceased as 45 years at the time of accident.
As per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 25% of the income has to be added to the income towards future prospects, since the deceased was of the age group of 40 to 50 years. If 25% of the income is added towards future prospects, it comes to Rs.7,500/- (Rs.6000 + Rs.1,500 =Rs.7,500/-). After deducting 1/4th of Rs.7,500/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.5,625/-. As the age of the deceased is considered as 45 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '14' and therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,45,000/- (Rs.5625/- X 12 X 14) towards 'loss of dependency'.
The 1st claimant, being the mother of the deceased, is entitled to Rs.30,000/- towards 'loss of filial consortium'. Claimant No.2, being the wife of the 79 deceased, is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of spousal consortium' and claimant No.3 and 5, being the children of the deceased are entitled to Rs.30,000/- each towards 'loss of parental consortium'. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and another Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral and transportation expenses'. In total, the claimants are entitled to reassessed compensation as under:
Amount(Rs.) Towards Loss of dependency 9,45,000.00 Towards loss of filial consortium 30,000.00 Towards loss of spousal consortium 40,000.00 Towards loss of parental consortium 90,000.00 (Rs.30,000 X 3 = Rs.90,000/-) Towards funeral and transportation 15,000.00 expenses Towards loss of estate 15,000.00 Total 11,35,000.00
25. The claimants/appellants in MFA No.23151/2012 (MVC No.527/2011) have filed the 80 petition claiming compensation for the death of their son, who died in the same accident. The claimants contended that the deceased was working as a bar-
bender and was earning an income of Rs.10,000/- per month. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the deceased can be considered as an unskilled labour and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal has considered RS.3,000/- per month, which is not correct. Therefore, I propose to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month and as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% of the income has to be added to the income of Rs.6,000/- as future prospects, which would come Rs.8,400/- per month. The claimants are the parents of the deceased and the deceased died bachelor. Hence, 50% of Rs.8,400/- shall be deducted towards his personal expenses, which would come to Rs.4,200/-. The deceased was aged about 23 years and the appropriate multiplier 81 applicable for the age ground of 20 to 25 years is '18'. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.4,200 X 12 X 18 ) towards 'loss of dependency'. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.30,000/- each towards 'loss of filial consortium;. Further, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and another Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral and transportation expenses'. In all the claimants are entitled the reassessed compensation as under:
Amount(Rs.) Towards Loss of dependency 9,07,200.00 Towards loss of filial consortium 60,000.00 (Rs.30,000 X 2) Towards funeral and transportation 15,000.00 expenses Towards loss of estate 15,000.00 Total 9,97,200.00 82
26. As regards the liability fastened by the Tribunal and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Poonam's case (supra) there were excess passengers than the permit limit of 11 passengers. As per the Insurance Policy, only 11 passengers are covered by excluding driver (totally 12 admissible).
Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in 11 cases in which this Court has enhanced the compensation and in respect of remaining claimants, in respect of excess of permit, the Insurance Company is ordered to pay the compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
Consequently, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed. The appeals filed by the appellants/claimants are allowed in part. The judgments and awards of the Tribunals in respective claim petitions against which the claimants have preferred appeals, are modified and the claimants are 83 entitled for the enhanced compensation as against the compensation awarded by the respective Tribunals as under:
AMOUNT AWARDED ENHANCED
Sl.
MFA NO. MVC NO. BY THE AMOUNT
No.
TRIBUNAL(Rs.) (Rs.)
1 21612/2013 70/2012 1,41,500/- 3,28,000/-
2 21613/2013 71/2012 2,18,240/- 2,51,640/-
3 21614/2013 74/2012 89,850/- 2,41,650/-
4 23403/2012 264/2011 1,67,000/- 4,17,000/-
5 23404/2012 263/2011 1,22,000/- 4,29,000/-
6 22334/2013 202/2011 2,02,000/- 6,93,000/-
7 22335/2013 203/2011 1,55,000/- 5,43,000/-
8 22336/2013 204/2011 2,00,000/- 5,25,000/-
9 22337/2013 206/2011 2,29,000/- 11,35,000/-
10 23151/2012 527/2011 3,90,000/- 9,97,200/-
The Insurer is directed to pay the compensation together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
84
The Insurance Company shall satisfy the awards in all claim petitions and is at liberty to recover in ten lesser awards from the owner of the vehicle.
The amount in deposit, if any, made by the insurer is ordered to be transmitted to the Jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.
In all the injury cases, the claimants are entitled to get release of the entire compensation amount.
The apportionment made by the Tribunal in death cases are not disturbed.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab