Karnataka High Court
Shobha R W/O Rajesh V vs P P Pramod S/O Boraiah on 12 April, 2012
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
IN THE IHGI I COURT OF
KARNATAKA AT BANGAL
ORE
1)ATED THIS TIlE 121Ff DA
Y OF APRIL. 2012
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JtSTI
CE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST
APPEAL No.6157 OF 2011
MFANOS. 3395/li, 33
LW
96111, 3397/11, 3398/11,
3399/11,3400/H,615
6/11.6158/1L6159/1I,6
6161/i1.4991/11,499 160/11,
3/1L4994/1L4995/11
MFA NO.6157/2011
BETWEEN:
L SIIOBHA R W/O RAJES
HV
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
2. MASTER DEEPAK S/O RA
JESH V
AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS.
3. VENKATACHALAIAH
S/0 NARAYANA SHEITY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
4. GOWRAMMA W/O VENK
ATACHALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
SINCE APPELLANT NO.2
IS
MINOR REP: BY HIS MO
THER &
NATURAL GUARDIAN SM
T.SHOBHA.R
ALL ARE R/A NO.57, 5T
H CROSS. II MAIN.
MAGADI ROAD. VRUSHA
BHAVATHINAGARA,
KAMAKSHIPALYA. BANG
ALORE- 79
(BY SRI LAWYERS NET. APPELLANTS
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. P.R PRAMOD 5/0 BORA
IAH
MAd OR
R/A NO.5/4, 2N1) MAIN
. 6TH CROSS.
MYSORE ROAD. BYAT
ARAYANAPURA
BANGALORE
2. TFIE ORIENTAL INSURA
NCE CO LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE, LE
O SHOPPING COMPLEX
RESIDENCY ROAD CR ,
OSS. BANGALORE- I
REP BY ITS MANAGER
3. SHIVANNA S/O SATHYA
PPA
MAJOR
R/A THAMMANNA DO
DDI VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI. RAMA
NAGARA DISTRI CT
4. CHOLAMANDALA MS
M
1
GEN INS CO LTD
NO.9/i, ULSOOR RAOD
, BENGALURU-42
REP BY ITS MANAGER
(BY SRI.S,SRISHAILA, RESPONDENTS
ADV. FOR R2
SRI O.MAHESH. ADV.
FOR R4)
*****
THIS MISCELLANEO
US FIRST APPEAL IS FI
OF MV ACT AGAI LED U/S 173(1)
NST THE JUDGM
DATED:Oi/iO/20i0 EN I AND AWARD
PASSED IN MVC.NO.
FILE OF 14TH ADDiT 7082/2009 ON THE
IONAL JUDGE THE
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MOTOR ACCIDENT
COURT OF SMALL CA
CITY (SCCH--iO), PART USES. BENGALURU
LY ALLOWING THE CL
COMPENSATION AIM PETITION FOR
AND SEEKING
COMPENSATION. ENHANCEMENT OF
MFA NO.3395/2011
BETWEEN:
1. THE LEGAL MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERSL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NO.9/i. ULSOOR ROAD,
BANGALORE- 560042
BY CHOLAiMANDALAM MS
GENERAL INS. CO. LTD. NO.135/5.
15TH
CROSS, J.P.NAGAR 3RD PHASE. BAN
GALORE
APPELLANT
(BY SRI,O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KS SAVITHRI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
W/O B,R.NARESH KUMAR,
2. B.RAMAKRISHNAIAH.
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O BOMMALINGAPPA,
3. K.N.LAKSHMAMMA. MAJOR
W / 0 B. RAMAKRISHNAIAH
ALL ARE R/A NO.C-9
KUMARA NILAYA. V.V.PURA.
GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN.
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-56
2 01
4. P,P.PRAMOD. MAJOR,
S/O BORAISH, R/A NO.5/4
2ND MAIN. 6TH CROSS.
MYSORE ROAD, BYTARAYANAPU
RA.
4
BANGALORE-560 021
5. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE.
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX.
RESI1)ENCE ROAD CROSS.
BANGALORE-56000 1
6. SHIVANNA. MAJOR
S/0 SATHYAPA,
R/A TEIAMMANNA DODDI VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI.
RAMANAGARA DIST.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRLK.N.SRINIVASA. ADV. FOR R5
SRI LAWYERS NET, ADV. FOR R1-3)
*****
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILE
D U/S 173(1)
OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD
DATED:1.10.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.7081/200
9 ON THE FILE
OF 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE. COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES,
MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE CITY. AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS. 14.05.704/- WffH INTE
REST @ 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEOPSIT
MFA NO.3396/2011
BETWEEN:
L THE LEGAL MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERSL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NO.9/i. ULSOOR ROAD.
BAN GALORE- 560042
BY CHOLAMANDALAM MS
GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.
NO.135/5, 15TH
CROSS. J.P.NAGAR.
3RD PHASE, BANGALORE
APPELLANT
(BY SRI.O MAHESH. AI)V.)
AND:
L SHOBHA.R
AGE 30 YEARS.
W/O RAJESH.V.
2. MASTER DEEPAK, B.RAMAKRISHNAIAH,
AGED 2 YEARS.
S/a RAJESH V.
3, VENKATAC HALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANA SHEYFY
4. GOWRAMMA.
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/ 0 VENKATACHALAIAH
SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR.
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER &
NATURAL GUARDIAN.
SMT.SHOBHA.R
ALL ARE R/A NO.57. 5TH CROSS.
II MAIN. MAGADI ROAD.
VRUSHABHAVAThINAGARA.
KAMAKSHIPALAYA, BANGALORE 79
5. P.P.PRAMOD, MAJOR,
S/O BORAISH, R/A NO.5/4
2ND MAIN. 6TH CROSS,
MYSORE ROAD. BYTARAYANAPURA.
BANGALORE
6. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCE ROAD CROSS,
6
BANGALORE-56000 I
7. SHIVANNA. MAJOR
S/O SATHYAPA.
R/A THAMMANNA DODI)I ViLLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI.
RAMANAGARA DIST.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.LAWYERS NET. ADV. FOR RL4
SRI. S.SRISHAILA, ADV. FOR R6)
C Uh
iqo .to Pv:. :1
is is(')
4
4 ''
/-9 , 14
MFANO.3397/2011 °( '''
LS
BETWEEN:
1* pFLi)
Cy
, V1t1 LL
41/ ;.
THE LEGAL MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERSL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NO.9/i, ULSOOR ROAD.
BANGALOR&- 560042
BY CHOLAMANDALAM MS
GENERAL INS. CO. LTD. NO.135/5, 15TH
CROSS, J.P.NAGAR 3RD PHASE, BANGALORE
APPELLANT
(BY SRI.O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. M.LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
S/O ANANDA SHABARAYA,
2. SMT.SUDHA L SHABARAYA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WIFE OF M LARSHMIN\ANA
SHABARAYA
7
BOTH RESIDING AT.MUNDOOR HOUSE.
KOKKADA VILLAGE AND POST.
BELTHAN GAD I TALU K,
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
3, P.P.PRAMOD, MAJOR,
5/0 BORAISH. R/A NO.5/4
2ND MAIN. 6TH CROSS.
MYSORE ROAD, BYTARAYANAPURA,
BANGALORE
4. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE.
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX.
RESIDENCE ROAD CROSS,
BANGALORE-56000 1
5. SHIVANNA, MAJOR
S/O SATHYAPA.
R/A THAMMANNA DODDI VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA DIST.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.LAWYERS NET, ADV. FOR Ri & R2
SRI.S.SRISHAILA. ADV. FOR R4)
*****
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1)
OF MV ACT AGAINST TI-IE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:0 1.10.2010 PASSED IN MVC 1NO.
' 200 7083
9 ON THE
FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT. COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES. BENGALURU. AWARDING A COMPENSATION
OF Rs,8,93.452/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN COURT.
$
MFA NO.3398/20 1 1
BETWEEN:
THE LEGAL MANAGER.
CHOLAMANDALAM MS. GENERAL INSURANCE
COv1PANY LIMITED. NO.9/1. ULSOOR ROAD.
BAN GALORE.
BY CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. NO.135/5.
15TH CROSS, J.P,NAGAR, 3RD PHASE,
BANGALORE. BY ITS MANAGER.
APPELLANT
(BY SRLO.MAHESH, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT. MALLAMMA,
AGED 55 YEARS. W/O B. BHADRAIAH.
2. K,B.SURESH,
AGED 34 YEARS. S/O B. BHADRAIAH,
ALL ARE R/AT KOOTAGAL VILLAGE & POST.
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT.
3. P.R PRAMOD, MAJOR,
S/O BORAIAH, R/AT NO.5/4. 2ND MAIN.
6Th CROSS, MYSORE ROAD.
BYATARAYANAPURA, BAN GALORE.
4. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD..
REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX.
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS.
BANGALORE,
5. SHIVANNA. MAJOR.
S/O SATHYAPPA,
R/AT THAMMANNA DODDI VILLAGE.
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA DIST.
9
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.LAWYERS NET. ADV. FOR RI & R2
SRI.S.SRISHAILA, ADV. FOR R4)
*****
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1)
OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:O1.1O.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.7084/2009 ON THE
FILE OF THE 14TH ADDLTIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES. BENGALURU. AWARDING A COMPENSATION
OF Rs.3.51.436/- WITh INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN COURT.
MFANO.3399JQU
BETWEEN:
THE LEGAL MANAGER,
CHOLAMANDALAM MS. GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED. NO.9/i, ULSOOR ROAD.
BAN GALO RE.
BY CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.135/5,
15TH CROSS. J.P.NAGAR, 3RD PHASE.
BANGALORE. BY ITS MANAGER.
APPELLANT
(BY SRI,O.MAHESH. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED 54 YEARS. Sb KANDASWAMY.
R/AT NO. FA265. II BLOCK, 2ND MAIN,
5Th CROSS,HAL OLD TOWNSHIP. VIMANAPURA
I ()
POST, BAN GALO RE,
2. SMT. PALLAVAI,
AGED 29 YEARS,
D/O KRISHNA MURTHY.
R/AT K.N. PURA VILLAGE,L
THALLIKAYEE POST, BHADRAVATH1 TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
3. P.P.PRAMOD,MAJOR,
S/O F3ORAIAH. R/AT NO.5/4. 2ND MAIN.
6TH CROSS. MYSORE ROAD,
BYATARAYANAPURA, BAN GALORE.
4. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD..
REGIONAL OFFICE.
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX.
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS,
BANGALO RE.
5. SHIVANNA. MAJOR,
Sb SATHYAPPA,
R/AT THAMMANNA DODDI VILLAGE,
BIDAI)I HOBLI, RAMANAGARA DIST.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.LAWYERS NET. ADV. FOR Ri & R2
SRI.SRISHAILA, ADV. FOR R4)
*****
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1)
OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
01.10.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.7085/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE. MACT, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES. BENGALURU. AWARI)ING A COMPENSATION OF
Rs.2,95,824/ WITH INTEREST © 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN COURT.
MFA NO.3400/2011
BETh
E
T EN:
I. THE LEGALMANAGER,
CHOLA.MANDAIAM MS. GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITEI). NO.9/i. ULSOOR ROAD,
BAN GALORE.
BY CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. NO. 135/5.
15Th CROSS, J.P.NAGAR, 3RD PHASE,
BANGALORE. BY ITS MANAGER.
APPELLANT
(BY SRI.O MAHESH. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. KAMALAMMA.
AGED 56 YEARS, W/O MUDDEGOWDA.
2. SRI. B. KRISHNA,
AGED 34 YEARS, S/0 MUDDEGOWDA,
BOTh ARE R/AT K.N, PURA VILLAGE.
THALLIKATTE POST. BHADRAVATHI TALUK.
SHIMOGA I)ISTRICT.
3. P.P. PRAMOD. MAJOR.
S/O BORAIAH. R/AT NO.5/4. 2ND MAIN.
6Th CROSS, MYSORE ROAD,
BYATARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE,
4. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD..
REGIONAL OFFICE.
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS.
BANGALORE.
5. SHIVANNA. MAJOR.
S/O SATHYAPPA.
12
R/AT THAMMANNA DODD I VILLAGE.
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA DIST.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRLLAWYERS NET, ADV. FOR Ri & R2
SRI.S.SRISHAILA. ADV. FOR R4)
MFA NO 6156/2011 i'- vi ,
oo /, cy f
BETWEEN: - - J-- &
' i rv
1. K S SAVITHRI
'
A
W/O B R NARESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
R/A NO.C954, KUMARA NILAYA.
V.V.PURA. GOURIBIDANUR TOWN.
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
2. B RAMAKRISHNAIAH
S/O BOMMALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68YEARS.
R/A NO.C954. KUMARA NILAYA,
V.V.PURA, GOURIBIDANUR TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
3. K N LAKSHMAMMA
W/O B RAMAKRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/A NO.C-954, KUMARA NILAYA,
V.V.PURA. GOURIBIDANUR TOWN.
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
APPELLANTS
(BY SRI LAWYERS NET, ADV.)
AND:
P P PRAMOD Sb BORAIAH
MAJOR
R/A NO.5/4. 2ND MAIN. 6TH CROSS.
MYSORE ROAD. BYATARAYANAPURA
13
BAN GALO RE
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE Co LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE. LEO SHOPPING COvWLEX.
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE-- 1
REP BY ITS MANAGER
3. SHIVANNA S/O SATHYAPPA
MAJOR
R/A THAMMANNA DODDI VILLAGE.
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
4. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN INS CO LTD
NO.9/i. ULSOOR RAOD, BENGALURU-42
REP BY ITS MANAGER
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.SRISIIAILA, ADV. FOR R2
SRLO.MAHESH, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1)
OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
01.10.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.7081/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE. MACT. COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES. BENGALURU. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
2011
BETWEEN:
1. M LAKSHMINARAYANA SHABARAYA
S/0 ANANDA SHABARAYA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
R/A MUNDOOR HOUSE.
KOKKADA VILLAGE & POST,
BELTHANGADI TQ.. DAKSHINA KANNADA
2. SUDHA L SHABARAYA
W/O M LAKSHMINARAYANA SHABARAYA
14
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
R/A MUNDOOR HOUSE.
KOKKADA VILLAGE & POST,
BELTHANGADI TQ.. DAKSIIINA KANNADA
APPELLANTS
(BY SRLLAWYERS NET, ADV.)
AND:
1. P P PRAMOT.) S/O BORAIAH
MAJOR
R/A NO.5/4, 2ND MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
MYSORE ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA
BAN GALO RE
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX.
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE-- 1
REP BY ITS MANAGER
3. SHIVANNA S/O SATHYAPPA
MAJOR
R/A THAMMANNA DODDI VILLAGE.
BIDADI HOBLI. RAMANAGARA DISTRiCT
4. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN INS CO LTD
NO.9/i, ULSOOR RAOD. BENGALURU-42
REP BY ITS MANAGER
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.SRISHAILA. ADV. FOR R2
SRI O.MAHESH, ADV, FOR R4)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1)
OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:OI/1O/2010 PASSED IN MVC,NO,7083/2009 ON THE
FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF
15
SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH. 10). PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR CO]MWENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.6159/2011
BETWEEN:
MALLAMMA
\V/Q B BHAI)RMAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/A KOOTAGAL VILLAGE & POST,
RAMANAGARA TQ & DISTRICT
2. KBSURESH
S/O B BHADRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/A KOOTAGAL VILLAGE & POST.
RAMANAGARA TQ & DISTRICT
APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.LAWYERS NET. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. P P PRAMOD S/O BORAIAH
MAJOR
R/A NO.5/4. 2ND MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
MYSORE ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA
BAN GALORE
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS. BANGALORE-i
REP BY ITS MANAGER
3. SHIVANNA S / 0 SATHYAPPA
MAJ OR
R/A THAMMANNA DODDI VILLAGE.
BIDADI HOBLI. RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
4. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN INS CO LTD
NO.9/i. ULSOOR RAOD. BENGALURU-42
16
REP BY ITS MANAGER
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.SRISHAILA, ADV. FOR R2
SRI.O.MAHESH. ADV. FOR R4)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1)
OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:1/10/2010 PASSED IN MVC,NO.7084/2009 ON THE FILE
OF ThE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-I0), PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.6160/2011
BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O KANDASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO. FA265, 2ND BLOCK
2ND MAIN. 5TH CROSS, HAL OLD TOWNSHIP
vIMANAPURA POST. BENGALURU-17
2. PALLAVI K
D/O KRISHNA MURTHY
AGD ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT NO. FA-265. 2ND BLOK
2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS
HAL OLD TOWNSHIP, VIMANAPURA POST
BENGALURU- 17
APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.LAWYERS NET. ADV.)
'7
AND:
1. PPPRAMOD
Sb BORAIAH
MAJOR
R/A NO. 5/4, 2ND MAIN, 6TH CROSS
fYSORE ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA
BENGALURU
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE. LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-O1
REP BY ITS MANAGER
3. SHIVANNA
Sb SAThYAPPA
MAJOR
R/A THAMMANNA DODDI VILLAGE
B1DADI HOBLI
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
4. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN. INS. CO. LTD
NO. 9/1, ULSOOR ROAD
BENGALURU42
REP BY ITS MANAGER
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.SRISI-1AILA. ADV. FOR R2
SRI O.MAHESH, ADV. FOR R4)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARI) DATED:0i. 10.2010 PASSED iN MVC
NO.7085/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
MACT. COURT OF SMALL CAUSES. BENGALURU. PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATiON.
MFA NO.6161/2011
BETWEEN
18
1 KAMALAM MA
W/O MUDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT K N PUPA VILLAGE
THALLIKATFE POST. BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
2. B KRISHNA
5/0 MUDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT K N PUPA VILLAGE
THALLIKAYI'E POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
APPELLANTS
(By SRI LAWYERS NET. ADV.)
AND
1. PPPRAMOD
Sb BORAIAH
MAJOR
R/A NO. 5/4, 2ND MAIN, 6TH CROSS
MYSORE ROAD. BYATAPAYANAPURA
BENGALURU
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE. LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS. BENGALURU-Ol
REP BY ITS MANAGER
3. SHIVANNA
S / 0 SAThYAPPA
MAJOR
R/A THAMMANNA DODDI VILLAGE
BIDADI HOBLI
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
4. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN. INS. CO. LTD
NO. 9/1. ULSOOR ROAD
19
BENGALURU-42
REP BY ITS MANAGER
RESPONDENTS
(By SRI S.SRISHAILA. ADV. FOR R3
SRI O.MAHESH, ADV. FOR R4)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE.
JUI)GMENT AND AWARD DATED:0I/10/2010 PASSED IN
MVC.NO,7086/2009 ON ThE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
CITY (SCCH, 10), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENFIANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION,
MFA NO.4991/2011
BETWEEN
1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
R3GTONAL OFFICE NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING
COMPLEX. RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE 560025, REPRESENTED BY
ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
APPELLANTS
(By SRI S SRISHAILA. ADV.)
AND
I. SMT K S SAVITHRI
AGED 26 YEARS.
'\i/O LATE B R NARESH KUMAR.
R/AT KOOTAGAL VILLAGE & POST.
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT
2. B RAMAKRJSHNAIAH
64 YEARS.
S/0 BOMMALINGAPPA
RESIDENTS AT KOOTAGAL VILLAGE & POST.
20
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT
3. SMT K.N.LAKSHMAMMA
W/O B RAMAKRISHNAIAH
S/C BOMMALINGAPPA
RESIDENTS AT KOOTAGAL VILLAGE & POST.
RAMANAGAPA TALUK & I)1STRICT
4. PPRAMOD
5/0 BORAISH,
R/AT NO.5/A,
2N1) MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
MYSORE ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU
5. SRI SHIVANNA
S / 0 SATHYAPPA.
R/A THAMMANNA DODDI VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI.
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
6. CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL
INSURANC COMPANY LTD..
NO.9/i. ULSOOR ROAD,
BENGALURU
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI LAWYERS NET FOR Ri -3
SRI O,MAHESH, ADV, FOR R4)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARI) DATED:01. 10.20 10 PASSED IN MVC
NO.7081,72009 ON ThE FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE.
MACT. COURT OF SMALL CAUSES. BENGALURU. AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF Rs. 14.05.704/- WITH INTEREST © 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN COURT.
MFA NO.4993/2011
BET\VEEN
21
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.44/45. LEO SHOPPING
COMPLEX. RESIDENCY ROAD. BANGALORE.
REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
APPELLANTS
(By SRI. S SRISHAILA, ADV.)
AND
1. LAKSHMINARAYANA SHABARAYA
5/0 ANANDA SHABARAYA.
AGED 52 YEARS,
R/AT MUNDOORHOUSE, KOKKADA VILLAGE,
& POST, BELTHANGADY TALUK,
DAKSHINA KAN NADA.
2. SMT. SUDHA L SHABARAYA,
AGED 49 YEARS, W/O M. LAKSHMINARAYANA
SHABARAYA, R/AT MUNDOOR HOUSE,
KOKKADA VILLAGE & POST. BELTHANGADY T
TALUK. D K.
3. SRI. P.P. PRAMOD,
Sb BORAIAH, R/AT NO. 5/4, 2ND MAIN. 6TH
CROSS. MYSORE ROAD. BYATARAYANAPURA,
BAN GALROE.
4. SRI. SHIVANNA.
S/0 SATHYAPPA, R/AT THAMMANNA DODDI
VILLAGE. BIDADI HOBLI. RAMANAGARA
DISTRICT.
5. CHOLMANDALAM M S GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
NO.9/i, ULSOOR ROAD. BANGALORE.
RESPONDENTS
(By SRI : LAWYERS NET FOR Ri & R2
SRI: 0 MAHESH. ADV. FOR R5)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:0i.10.2010 PASSED IN MVC
NO.7083/2009 ON THE FILE OF ThE 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES. BENGALURU, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF Rs.8,93.452/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN COURT.
MFA NO.4994/2011
BETWEEN
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
REGIONAL OFFICE,. NO.44/45. LEO SHOPPING
COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD
BANGALLORE- 560025
REP BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
APPELLANTS
(By SRI S SRISHAILA, ADV.)
AND
I. SMTMALLAMMA
W/O B BHAI)RAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT KOOTAGAL VILLAGE AND POST
RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT
2. KBSURESH
S/0 B BHADRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT KOOTAGAL VILLAGE & POST
RAMANAGARA TALUK& POST
3. SRIPPPRIWOD
S/0 BORAIAH
R/A NO.5/4, 2ND MAIN, 6TH CROSS
MYSORE ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA
BANGALORE
4. SRI SHIVANNA
Sb SATHYAPPA
23
R/A THAMMANNA DODDI VILLAGE
BIDADI HOBLI
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
5. CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD
NO.9/i, ULSOOR ROAD
BENGALURU
RESPONDENTS
(By SRI LAWYERS NET FOR Ri & R2
SRI O.MAHESH, ADV. FOR R5)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:0i.10.2010 PASSED IN MVC
NO.7084/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,51,436/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A.
FROM ThE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN COURT.
MFA NO.4995/2011
BETWEEN
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
REGIONAL OFFICE,NO.44/45, LEO
SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560025, REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
APPELLANTS
(By SRI S.SRISHAILA, ADV.)
AND
1. KRISHNA MURTHY
S/O KANDASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 54 YERS,
2. SMT PALLAVI
29 YEARS, D/O KRISHNAMURTHY,
24
RK/AT FA 265. 2ND BLOCK, 2ND MAIN,
5TH CROSS, HAL OLD TOWN SHIP
VIMANAPURA ROAD. BANGALORE- 17
3. SRI P.P.RP MOD
Sb BORAIAH, R/ NO.5/4,
2ND MAIN, 6TH CROSS
MYSORE ROAD. BYATARAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU
4. SRI SHIVANN
Sb SATHYAPPA. R/A THAMMANNA DO1)DI
VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
5. CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
NO.9/i. ULSOOR ROAD.
BENGALURU
RESPONDENT(S)
(By SRI LAWYERS NET FOR Ri & R2
SRI O.MAHESH. ADV. FOR R5)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMEN5 T AND AWARD DATED:01,10.2010 PASSED IN MVC
NO.7085/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITiONAL JUDGE,
MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU. AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF Rs.2.95.824/- WITH INTEREST © 6% F. A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN COURT
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
25
JUDGEMENT
These are the appeals preferred against the Judgment and award passed by the M A C T. Bangalore in six claim petitions. Two vehicles were involved in the accident. The claimants as well as two Insurance companies of the respective vehicles are in appeal. While the insurance companies challenge the extent of liabifity fastened on them, the claimants have challenged the Judgment and award on the ground that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and therefore they sought for enhancement.
2. The facts leading to the case are as follows:
As per the FIR Ex.Pl dated 30.7.2009 one Umesh sb Krishnappa was the Informer. He reported that on 30.7.2009 at 5.30 p.m. while he was on his way to his house, he noticed the accident in which one Tipper No.KA-42-1291 dashed against K A 05 B 8596 lorry. Both the vehicles were proceeding towards Mysore from Bangalore. The lorry spun 26 over and by crossing the median landed on the Tata Sumo vehicle in which inmates of about 8 persons were traveling and they succumbed to the injuries. A case is registered In Crime No.341/2009 by Ramanagar Police for the offences punishable u/s 279, 337, 304-A of IPC. All the eight persons who were inmates of Tata Sumo died and rider of the motor cycle sustained grievous Injuries. Cholamandalam MS Insurance Company Ltd. is the insurer of Upper and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., is the insurer of lorry. The claims tribunal has fastened the liability at 75% on the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.. and 25% on Cholamndalam MS Insurance Co., Ltd.,
3. The learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased by adding future prospects at 50% since they were all permanent employees and in support of the same the employer has issued appointment order and the salary certificate. It Is further submitted that the judgment and award of the Tribunal to pay and recover shall not be ( 27 modified since the burden on the part of the insurance company is not discharged as to the driver not possessing valid driving licence.
4. Sri 0 Mahesh. learned counsel for Cholarnandalam MS Insurance Co. Ltd., submits that on 30.7.2009 the lorry and tipper were proceeding from Bangalore to Mysore side and at the relevant point of time, lorry proceeded in a rash and negligent manner and while overtaking, dashed the tipper and spun over the median and later on landed on the Tata Sumo from which it could be inferred that the driver of the lorry was totally responsible for the accident and the entire liability has to be fastened on the insurer of the lorry. The complainant Umesh has not been examined by the insurer of the lorry. By referring to Ex.P2 Mahazar, the learned counsel submits that the road is of a four line road. The driver of the lorry without following the procedure as it is provided under Rule 6 & 18 of the Rules of Road Regulations 1989 has caused the accident. Ex.P4 IMV report reveals that right side portion of the tipper was damaged, wind shield glasses were 28 1% broken, left axle, headlight thereby tipper lony went into the ditch towards left side of the road and similar damage also caused to the lorry which shows that the accident Is caused because of lony driver. The IMV Report further reveals damage to the Tata Sumo, complete body sheet, one shield glass, bumper, radiator by virtue of running of the lorry on it. This demonstrates that the lorry was driven in great speed and caused the accident. In these circumstances, fastening 25% liability on insurer of tipper is an error. Both the drivers have been charge sheeted under Section 279, 337, 338, 304- A nw Section 3(1) read with 181 of M V Act. The owner of the Upper has been charge sheeted u/s 5(1) read with Section 180 of the MV Act. Therefore, the driver of the tipper had no valid driving licence thereby the owner has violated Section 5(1) of the M V Act. Hence the liability could not have been fastened on the insurer of Tipper.
5. In the instant case, the driver of the tipper has violated Section 134(iv) by not informing in writing, name of the driver, currency of the policy and particulars of the 29 a. 4 driving licence. There is also violation of Section 158(6) and Rule 106(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules by police and insured not furnishing the required information to the insurer and the owner allowing the person to drive a transport vehicle. It is further submitted that when the Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the tipper lorry was not holding driving licence, the Insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation and therefore pay and recovery ordered is erroneous.
6. The learned counsel has relied upon judgment in Sarala Varma vs., Dethi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) AIR SCW 4992 Para-lO. Another judgment of this Court in MFA No.6267/2007 dated 14.9.2011 between National Insurance Co.. Ltd.. Vs.. Vijayalakshmi & others where in Pan-li it has been held that not possessing licence leads to insurance company not indemnifying the insured.
7. Sri Srisafl, learned counsel for Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., submits relying upon ILR 1999 KAR 367 between ( 30 Kumarl Sandhya Vs., KS R T C that when there is a common Judgment. adverse finding shall have to be challenged in all the matters. The decision in subsequent judgment in M F A No.8135/2009 dIsposed of on 2.4.2011 In a common judgment batch of petitions was disposed of on 1.10.2010. The same was not challenged since liability was not fixed on the insurance company on the ground of non possessing the driving licence by the driver. The learned counsel submitted that the Thbunal has committed an error in fastening the liability to the extent of 75% on his client arid 25% on the other insurance company. The said finding is an error since charge sheet was ified on both the drivers of the vehicles, in the evidence RW-1 has deposed about rash and negligent driving of both the drivers and the charge sheet was not challenged by the other insurer and therefore he prays for fixing the liabifity at 50% each as there Is no basis to split at the ratio of 75% and 25%. In M V C No.8135/2009 decided by the MACT, Bangalore 50% liabifity is fixed on the other Insurance company which has not been challenged. It is not 31 an option for the other insurer not to challenge when the award arises out of the same accident.
8. The learned counsel submits that Ex.P4 reveals that tipper and lorry both were moving on the two lane road and because of negligent driving of the tipper it resulted in accident for which tipper insurer should have been saddled with 50% liability.
9. The learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon judgment in 1999 ACJ 171 between Rukmini & others vs., New India Assurance where it has been held that the evidence is not sufficient to discharge the burden which was cast on the insurance company. It is further submitted that merely taking a ground that the driver was not possessing valid driving licence itself is not sufficient, The concerned person should be examined by summoning him. In the instant case, the insurance company has not examined and accordingly no examination is there. Hence the burden on the part of the insurance company is not discharged. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed by this Court in quite number of judgments of which M F A No.533/2009 between Bazaj Aliariz General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs., Srinivas & others dated 3.10.2010 and M F A No.7017/2007 between New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs., D V Shankar dated 9.11.2010 and M F A No.8612/2009 between Reliance General Insurance Co.. Ltd., Vs., Dadapeer disposed of on 2.12.2011 where the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kusumlatha vs., Satweer reported in 2011 ACJ 926, 2011 ACJ 1677 and 2004 ACJ 1 SC have been followed. Further it was held that the insurance company shall pay the award amount and recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, no error could be found by the tribunal having followed the above decisions in ordering pay and recovery.
10. In respect of future prospects. the employer of the deceased was examined and salary certificate and bank transaction. Form No.16 which are materials to prove the nature of stable employment. The said submission has been 33 C .7.
substantiated by relying upon the judgment of Sarala Varma Vs., Dethi Transport Corporation 2009 AIR SCW 4992. By referring Pan 10 & 11 the learned counsel submitted that where the deceased had a stable job the court can take note of the prQspects of future and It will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the actual Income of the deceased at the time of death. Therefore, the learned counsel for the claimants submits to enhance the compensation by adding future prospects to the salary income of the deceased at the time of death.
11. For the purpose of appreciating the rival contentions It Is to be noted that road from Bangalore to Mysore is a four line road. Each line Is of 20' wIdth and there cannot be any congestion for want of space. It Is a busy road and several vehicles pass through every day. In order to regulate the movement of the said busy road. several restrictions are Imposed by the concerned authorities. Both the vehicles were moving simultaneously, both the vehicles dashed each other resulting In damage to both the vehicles on right and left of S 34 .4.
front side. This could be seen from Ex.P4 IMV report. It is true that merely driving fast is not an offence but the rash and negligent driving to endanger the human life is an offence. The lorry in order to overtake the tipper moved fast resulting in dashing each other and landed on Tata Sumo vehicle coming from the opposite direction in a different line. There was a big median between these two lines at a height of 2 feet. The lorry which dashed the Upper lost control spun over the median and it was virtually landed on the Tata Sumo which resulted in death of eight persons. This only happens if the lorry might knove with speed but without care and caution in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules more particularly Rule 6 & 18 of Rules of Road Regulations 1989.
12. The evidence on the part of Oriental Insurance Co., through RW- 1 is also not relevant since he has not spoken in respect of the negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper. RW- I has been cross-examined by the insurance company where he has deposed that it is true to say that S front and left side portion of the vehicles was damaged in the accident. There is no damage on the hind portion of his lorry. His lorry was moving on the left side of the road. It is true to say that right part of the tipper lorry was damaged". This evidence in the cross--examination is in contravention of deposition in cross--examination by the petitioner where he has deposed that "witness volunteers that the tipper lorry came from hind side and dashed to his lorry thereby his lorry went towards the median and front right wheel of his lorry crossed the median and at that time the Tata Sumo came in a high speed and dashed to his vehicle and therefore his lorry fell down",
13. In the cross-examination of Respondent No.4 he has deposed that there is no damage to the hind portion of his lorry. Therefore, unless lorr is in high speed and drove in a rash and negligent manner, this type of accident could not have been occurred.
36
14. The next question required to be considered Is whether there were materials before the Tribunal to fix contributory negligence on both the vehicles. The tribunal considered the evidence of RW- 1 that driver of Tata Sumo came in high speed and dashed to his lorry but the said version was disbelieved. The Tata Sumo was not coming in the line of which these two lorries were proceeding. The Tata Sumo was entirely on the other side of the median. Under these circumstances, the evidence of RW- 1 that driver of Tata Sumo drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner cannot be believed. The evidence of RW- 1 who is driver of lorry since his evidence is disbelieved since It was not cogent evidence not corroborated with the charge sheet and FIR The Tribunal has fastened negligence on the part of the lorry to the extent of 75%. It Is true that both the parties have not produced the road sketch and it is submitted that the sketch Itself was not drawn. In the absence of those relevant materials, it is very difficult for either Tribunal or this Court to bifurcate the extent of negligence between the two vehicles.
K 37 '1 In this case, the lorry went out of its lane by crossing the median and dashed against the Tata Sumo. Virtually it landed on the Tata Sumo. However, In the absence of definite materials, It is not possible to modil3r the negligence aspect. It is true, speed itself is not a cause for accident. But the speed has to be assessed on the basis of the damage caused to both the vehicles by referring to IMV report and Mahazar with reference to the sketch. Unfortunately, no sketch Is drawn and made available to the Tribunal. It is also no use, if the matter is remanded at this length of time, only for that purpose.
15. The next question is pay and recovery. It was a specific case of the Insurer of the tipper that its driver was not In possession of the driving licence. It is well established law that no vehicle should ply on the public road by a driver without a valid driving licence. The owner of the vehicle shall not allow any person including himself to drive the transport vehicle In a public road without there being any licence. In the Instant case, the driver of the Upper has been charge 38 sheeted under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act for not possessing valid driving licence. Section 134 of the Act requires that in case of accident, the driver shall furnish particulars namely name of the driver and the particulars of his driving licence. When such a duty is cast on the driver. he shall have to comply it. In the instant case, even the driver has not complied the said provision. Under Section 158(vi) of the Motor Vehicles Act a duty is cast on the owner and Investigating officer to furnish particulars in respect of insurance policy, nature of accident and sketch etc., forthwith namely, within a period of 30 days to the Tribunal. But in the instant case, no such efforts have been made either by the owner or by the police officer. The driver has not produced the licence even in the extended period to furnish the same.
16. The learned counsel for the claimants submits that mere taking a ground of not possessing the driving licence itself do not discharges the burden of proving the said contention. Mere framing of charge itself is not sufficient K 39 without summoning and examining the driver. Cholamandalam Insurance Co., has taken a specific objection, pursuant to the notice issued by the Thbunal to the effect that the driver of the vehicle of which he is insured was not In possession of driving licence. Though the owner served, he was placed exparte. In the said circumstance, Is it proper for the Thbunal and this Court to hold that insurer has effectively discharged its duty in proving the case of non possessing the driving licence. The judgment relied upon by Sri Chandrashekar reported in 1999 ACJ 5171 in RUKMINI & OTHERS vs., NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., wherein it is held that non production of driving licence even after demand and statement in the cross-examination that it is the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, whEY is required to check whether the licence is true, are not sufficient to discharge the burden on the part of the insurance company. This Judgment is followed in number of judgments referred to supra. In the light of the judgment of this court, the contention of the insurance company that service of notice itself is sufficient cannot be 40
-'4 accepted. If any person fails to appear pursuant to the notice, the further procedure under CPC and Cr P C has to be followed to secure the presence of the person. Such a procedure has not been invoked in the present case. In the instant case, the primary documents like complaint made by one Umesh, charge sheet where the driver of both the vehicles and owner have been charge sheeted for non compliance on their part. Hence legal inference could be drawn that though driver of the tipper lorry was not examIned, it Is held that he was not in possession of the driving licence and Cholamandalam Insurance Company is held not liable to satisfy the award. Therefore, the owner of the Upper lorry has to satisfy the award within a period of three months from the date of receipt of cow of the award.
17. The learned counsel for the claimants relying upon the judgment in Sarala Varma at pan 10 & 11 submitted that since the deceased were holding stable job and they were aged less than 40 years, 50% of their salary income should be 4' computed for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency. In order to extend the said benefit what is required to be considered is whether the deceased were having a stable job and further was at a permanent job. F'urther the evidence to indicate prospects like promotions and increments are to be placed before the Tribunal and self-employed though he was in a fixed salary, courts have to take annual actual income at the time of death.
18. The last question for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled for compensation under the head loss of future prospects in terms of the judgement tendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another. In Para 10 and 11 of the said judgment it has been held as to how the compensation to be awarded under the head loss of dependenc. in case where the deceased had a stable job. Further, in Para 11 it has been held that in order to assess 42 the stable job, permanent nature and future prospects in the nature of increment, l)romotion etc.. there could have been evidence and materials to consider. Further that position also could be made departure in only rare and exceptional cases involved in special circumstances. Keeping in view the judgment reftrred to supra. I have gone through the materials produced by the claimants. By virtue of the appointment order, Bank extracts, where salary has been credited and the submissions of the concerned claimant is considered. It looks that the institution where the deceased was working is a Private Limited Company. With regard to the nature of employment, its permanent nature with future prospects like promotions, increments etc., no evidence is placed by the claimants. In the absence of proof. the submissions of the claimants to the effect that the appointment itself is permanent in nature and deceased left about 29 years of service for which though there is no evidence on record, but the same is to he considered as an exceptional case. From the materials found in the LCR the age of the deceased was 43 mentioned as 29 or 30 years and by virtue of the accident their future prospects has been taken away. The recent trend in the present economy scenario where the Government in both public sector and private sector is being restricted and the activities of the private Enterpreneurship, progress and demands of skilled labors Itself Is on high. If the claimants have not produced any evidence and materials with regard to promotion aspects and Increments etc. It does not mean that the deceased was not having future prospects, not only from this Institution but also In any other institutions like permanent nature. Further stable job of permanent nature, if ft Is understood as If ft Is only from the Government and Public sector undertaldng. It takes away future prospects of large number of members who are working in the private sector companIes. Under these circumstances as ft Is held in the judgment of the Supreme Court In Sarah Verma case Itself at Pam 12 as the departure made only In the rare and exceptional cases Involving special circumstances, the same has to be considered.
44
19. In view of the accident the future of young widow, minor children and aged parents has become bleak. In the circumstances instead of taking 50% of the income, I inclined to take some amount under the head of loss of future prospects. In the light of the above observations in the individual case of the claimants has to be considered.
20. In MVC No.7081/2009 where the deceased by name B.R Nareshkumar and the claimants are his wife and parents and the age of the deceased was 31 years. Since I hold it is an exceptional case I propose to take 25% of the salary for the purpose of future prospects. Accordingly, it is applied. Calculation would be:
Monthly income Rs.10631/- + 25% of 10631/- Rs.13,289/- less 1/3M towards personal expenses of the deceased.
Loss of dependency = 13289x2/3x 12x 16
= Rs.17,00,992/-
Under Conventional head = Rs. 40,000/-
Total compensation Rs. 17,40,992/-
45
Accordingly, claimants in MFA No.6156/2011 (MVC No.7081/2009) are entitled for Rs.17,40,992/- with interest in the place of Rs. 14,05,704/- awarded by the Tribunal.
19. In appeal M F A No.6161/2011 the deceased Is the driver and the claimants are mother and brother of the deceased. The case of the claimants is that Tribunal committed an error In assessing the income of the deceased at 4,500/- per annum, as the accident is of the year 2009 without considering the Income certificate produced by them.
When the deceased has been considered as driver, the Tribunal should have taken judicial notice in awarding compensation by taking Income of the deceased atleast Rs.200/- per day.
20. Submission has been considered in the light of the facts and circumstances. The case of the claimants has been rejected on the ground, the author of the salary certificate has not been examined. There is no hard and fast rule, in all (S 46 cases, to examine the employer. In case where the author of salary certificate has not been examined it is for the Tribunal to consider the occupation. If occupation is considered as skilled work then the Income normally prevailed in the market is to be considered. Accordingly in all the appeals, the Income of the deceased is considered at least Rs.200/- per day. It comes to Rs.6000/- per month. 50)6 of it becomes Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly calculation would be as under:
Rs.3000 x 12 x 11 = Rs.3,96,000/-.
Same is awarded under the head loss of dependency. Under conventional head Rs.40,000/- is awarded. In total Rs.4,36,000/- In the place of Rs.3,22.000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
21. In M F A No.6157/2011, the deceased was getting the income of Rs.4,28, 167.00 being a Senior Finance Executive in M/s.Madura Garments Exports Ltd.. If 25% of the income is added to this, it comes to Rs.5,35,209/-. Therefore, loss of dependency would be Rs.5,35,209 x ¾ x 16 ( 47 = Rs.64,22,508.00. The claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- under conventional heads. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.64,62,508.00 as against Rs.51,83,000/- awarded by the claims tribunal, which shall carry interest at 6%.
22. In M F A No.6158/2011 filed by the claimants the Income of the deceased was Rs.11,134/-. If 25% of the income is added it comes to Rs. 13,918.00. Therefore, the loss of dependency would be Rs.13918 x ½ x12x13 = Rs.1O,85,604/-. Under conventional head, the claimants are awarded Rs.40,000/-. Hence total compensation comes to Rs. 11,25,604.00 as against Rs.8,93,452/-, which shall carry Interest at 6%.
23. In M F A No.5-150/20Z 1, the deceased was getting Rs.4,945/- per month and if 25% of it is added, it conies to Rs.6181/-. Therefore, loss of dependency would be Rs.6181/- x ½ x 12 x 11= Rs.4,07,946. The claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- under conventional heads. The total compensation comes to Rs.4,47,946/- as against .1 '--S 'I Ii Ca ncue c.t.'etc 3thLiJ 43),t6a-T /0 i.l-oa2- fL l+(bir 38 Rs.3,5 1.436/- awarded by the claims tribunal, which shall carry 6% interest.
24. In M F A No.6160/2011, siice the claim petition was filed under Section 1 63-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the claims tribunal itself has taken Rs3.3l0/- as the monthly income, the appeal for enhancement does not survive. Accordingly, M F A No.6160/2011 is dismissed.
25. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
25. Appeals filed by the Cholamandal Insurance Company Limited are hereby partly allowed. amount refunded and the appeals filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited stand dismissed.
Sd! JUDGE akd/sbs