Karnataka High Court
Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd vs Bharathi And Ors on 18 September, 2024
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7047-DB
MFA No. 202048 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202048/2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
III FLOOR, ASIAN PLAZA,
THIMAPUR CIRCLE,
KALABURAGI.
(NOW REPESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI).
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
by SHILPA R
TENIHALLI AND:
Location:
HIGH COURT 1. BHARATHI
OF
KARNATAKA W/O CHAKRADHAR
@ CHANDRASHEKHAR HEGGI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: CHITGUPPA, TQ: HUMNABAD,
DISTRICT: BIDAR-585 401.
2. KRISHNA S/O CHAKRADHAR
@ CHANDRASHEKHAR HEGGI,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: CHITGUPPA, TQ: HUMNABAD,
DISTRICT: BIDAR-585 401.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7047-DB
MFA No. 202048 of 2019
3. SHURUTI D/O CHAKRADHAR
@ CHANDRASHEKHER HEGGI,
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: CHITGUPPA, TQ: HUMNABAD,
DISTRICT: BIDAR-585 401.
4. MURLIDHAR
S/O KARBASAPPA HEGGI,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: CHITGUPPA, TQ: HUMNABAD,
DISTRICT: BIDAR-585 401.
5. KALAVATI
W/O MURLIDHAR HEGGI,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: CHITGUPPA, TQ: HUMNABAD,
DISTRICT: BIDAR-585 401.
6. MILIND SCHROTRI S/O BALAKRISHNA,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 100/1, RUKMANI NAGAR,
PANDARPUR,
TQ: & DIST: SHOLAPUR-413 001.
7. THE BAJAJ ALIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
4TH FLOOR, KALABURAGI MANSION,
OPP. CORPORATION LAMINATION ROAD,
HUBLI-580 020.
8. DATTU
S/O CHANDRAKANTH VHONGALE,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: PONDUAULWADI, TQ: INDAPUR,
DISTRICT: PUNE- 413 106.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV., FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI H.M. GILKI AND SRI BHARATHKUMAR, ADVS., FOR R6;
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADV., FOR R7;
R8 - SERVED)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7047-DB
MFA No. 202048 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.08.2019 IN MVC
NO.68/2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT
AT HUMNABAD.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) The appellant - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, who was respondent No.4 in MVC No.68/2014 has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 05.08.2019 passed in the said case by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Humnabad, (for short 'Tribunal') on the ground of contributory negligence as two vehicles are involved in the accident and also quantum of compensation.
2. The parties to this appeal are referred to with reference to their rank before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that, they have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:7047-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2019 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.90,00,000/- directing the respondents to pay the said compensation as the liability is joint and several on account of the death of Chakradhar @ Chandershekhar in a road traffic accident that occurred on 26.02.2012. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that, deceased Chakradhar @ Chandershekhar was an inmate of Bolero jeep bearing registration No.MH-13/AZ-1033 and he was travelling towards Pune. At that time, one jeep bearing registration No.MH-42/M- 3339 came from Pune side near Kurukumba village and dashed to the Bolero jeep. Because of this accident, deceased being the inmate of the Bolero jeep has sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
4. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that, the deceased was a Bank employee during his lifetime and was earning Rs.45,000/- per month. The deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident and was hale and healthy. The claimants being the dependents on the deceased now they are deprived of the income of the deceased and they are put to hardship. Therefore, they filed a claim petition claiming compensation.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7047-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2019 5. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.2 and 4 appeared and resisted the claim petition by filing detail objections statements independently. It is contended by respondent Nos.2 and 4 that, the driver of the jeep bearing registration No.MH-42/M-3339 was rash and negligent so also the driver of the Bolero jeep. With regard to the income, age of the deceased etc., respondent No.2 denied the same. Respondent No.4 denied that, the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep bearing No.MH-42/M-3339. Thus, it is contended that, respondent Nos.2 and 4 are not liable to pay the compensation as claimed and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. Respondent No.1 though served with the notice, has not appeared. Therefore, he was placed exparte by the Tribunal. Respondent No.3 though served remained absent before the Tribunal.
6. Based upon the rival contentions, the Tribunal framed in all three issues. To prove the case of the claimants, claimant Nos.1 and 4 entered the witness box as PWs.1 and PW.2 and one witness was examined as PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P25 and closed the claimants' evidence. The officials -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:7047-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2019 of respondent Nos.4 and 2 entered the witness box as RW1 and RW2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R3.
7. On hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal answered issue Nos.1 and 2 partly in the affirmative and ultimately awarded compensation under all the conventional heads at Rs.53,06,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. It is ordered that, respondent Nos.3 and 4 being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation, however directed respondent No.4 to deposit the compensation amount. Even the Tribunal has ordered regarding apportionment of the award amount. Now the Insurance Company i.e., respondent No.4 is before this Court challenging the award of compensation on the ground of contributory negligence as well as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
8. It is the main contention by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company - respondent No.4 that, since the said accident has occurred between two vehicles, there was contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:7047-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2019 vehicles in causing the accident, but the Tribunal has held entire negligence on the part of driver of offending jeep only. It is the further case of respondent No.4 that though the documents were produced by the claimants before the Tribunal as regards income of the deceased, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.34,000/- per month which is excessive. It is submitted that, the claimants are not entitled for any interest on the future prospects. It is further submitted that the award of the Tribunal is highly excessive and it has to be reduced considerably. Hence, she prayed for allowing the appeal.
9. As against this submission, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.34,000/- per month, which is in his opinion just and proper. He submits that though there were certain deductions like income tax and festival advance, etc., the remaining amount is to be taken for calculation and the Tribunal had rightly calculated the income and awarded the compensation. The claimants justify the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7047-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2019
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.7, who is respondent No.3 before the Tribunal, submits that the Tribunal has rightly decided claim petition and no liability is fastened on respondent No.7. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
11. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and given our anxious consideration to the submissions of both sides.
12. In view of the rival submissions from both sides, the only point that would arise for our consideration is:
"Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation and fastening the liability on the appellant - Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, who is respondent No.4 before the Tribunal, to indemnify the compensation?"
13. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in a road traffic accident that occurred between the Bolero Jeep bearing registration No.MH-13/AZ-1033 in which the deceased was proceeding to Officer Organization in MID College at Pune and another jeep bearing registration No.MH-42/M-3339 came from Pune side on 26.02.2012 at 10.00 a.m. It is also not in dispute -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:7047-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2019 that the deceased was a Bank employee and the claimants are his wife, children and parents. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of offending jeep bearing No.MH-42/M-3339 insured with the appellant - respondent No.4. The Police after due investigation has filed charge-sheet against the driver of the offending jeep. This fact is not denied by the appellant either by filing objections or adducing proper evidence during the course of evidence. While deciding issue No.1, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of Bolero jeep, in which the deceased was traveling, therefore, absolved the liability of the said accident on the driver of offending jeep and accordingly fixed the liability on respondent No.4, the appellant herein. Though the appellant contended about contributory negligence on the part of driver of Bolero jeep, except bald allegations no evidence was led before the Tribunal or sought to lead any additional evidence before this Court to prove the same. In the absence of such evidence by the Insurance Company, the Tribunal relying on the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 led by the claimants
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7047-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2019 and the documents marked at Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2-Complaint, Ex.P3-Further Statement, Ex.P4-Spot Panchnama, Ex.P5-Map, Exs.P6 and P7-Accident Reports and Exs.P8 and P9-Driving License held that, the accident has taken place because of rash and negligence driving of the offending jeep by its driver. Therefore, the contention of the Insurance Company with regard to contributory negligence cannot be accepted.
14. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased, has considered Exs.P17 to P19, the certified copy of the account statements of the deceased. As per Ex.P18-Salary Certificate, for the month of February-2012 the deceased had drawn net salary of Rs.17,365/- per month, which also reveals his gross salary at Rs.35,215/- per month. It shows the deductions of the deceased towards PF, VPF, Income-Tax Festival Advance, Housing Loan in total Rs.17,850/-. Hence, though, the Bank Account Extracts of the deceased discloses that he was drawing average salary of more than Rs.20,000/- per month, from the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the documents at Exs.P17 to 20, it is proved that the deceased was working as a Manager in Bank of India is proved, hence the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7047-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2019 income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.34,000/- in our opinion is just and proper. As the deceased handsome was a Manager in the Bank of India, he was getting substantial handsome salary every month.
15. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation, apart from taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 34,000/-, added 30% of his income i.e., Rs.10,200/- towards future prospects, which worked out at Rs.44,200/- per month and for annually it worked at Rs.5,30,400/-. As there are five dependants, the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/4th of Rs.5,30,400/- i.e., Rs.1,32,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, which comes to Rs.3,97,800/- per annum. As the deceased was aged 46 at the time of his death, in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier '13' and calculated the compensation towards loss of dependency at (3,97,800/- x 13) Rs.51,71,000/-, which is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7047-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2019
16. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.80,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.15,000/- towards other expenses like funeral and transportation of the dead body. The same is also just and proper.
17. The appellant has not disputed issuance of policy and its validity as on the date of accident. It has also not disputed with regard to liability. There is no proof of violation of terms and conditions of the policy by the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, we do not find any factual or legal error committed by the Tribunal in fastening the liability on the respondent Nos.3 and 4 jointly and severally with a direction to the appellant-respondent No.4 to indemnify the award amount with interest.
18. The learned counsel for the appellant - respondent No.4 submits that, insofar as future prospects are concerned, in view of the judgment of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this court in MFA No.1662/2023 decided on 02.07.2024, as there would be no delay in paying the said future prospects, the interest on the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7047-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2019 same should not be levied. She has placed reliance on para No.19.1 of the said judgment wherein it is observed as under:
"19.1 In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Allahabad High Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Vs Smt.Seema Devi and 6 Ors (Seema Devi)3.
In this decision, placing reliance on the decisions in Khusboo Chirania @ Kanta Chirania Vs Kamal Kumar Sovasaria (Khusboo), National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Mst. Aisha Bano and Ors dated 14.07.2023 (Aisha Bano) and Smt. Kalpana Madhu Gavali and Ors Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation dated 21.09.2023 (Kalpana), it was held that the compensation granted under the head loss of future prospects should not have been subjected to payment of any interest."
19. In view of the observation in Para No.19.1 of the said judgment, it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant - respondent No.4 that, the claimants are entitled for compensation together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization excluding the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7047-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2019 amount awarded towards future prospects. The point raised accordingly is answered. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified only to the extent that the claimants are not entitled for any interest on the compensation awarded towards future prospects.
(iii) The claimants are entitled for compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.53,06,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum (excluding interest on future prospects).
(iv) Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization,
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7047-DB MFA No. 202048 of 2019 within four weeks from today, excluding interest on future prospects.
(v) The statutory amount in deposit be transferred to the Tribunal, forthwith.
(vi) There shall be modified award in the above terms.
Sd/-
(S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SRT/SBS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2 CT:BN