Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh S/O Mallappa vs Sanjeevkumar S/O. Lalasingh on 26 November, 2020
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
M.F.A.NO.22428/2012 C/W.MFA No.22427/2012, MFA
No.21832/2011 and MFA No.21833/2011(MV)
IN MFA NO. 22428/2012
BETWEEN
VENKTESH S/O MALLAPPA
AGED: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. JABBALGUDDA,
TQ: & DIST: KOPPAL
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI H.N. GULARADDI, ADV.)
AND
1. SANJEEVKUMAR S/O. LALASINGH
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF MINI LORRY
BEARING NO. KA-36/3334,
R/O. LINGASGUR, TQ: LINGASUR,
DIST: RAICHUR.
2. MANJUNATH S/O. ERAPPA
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF MINI LORRY
R/O. H.NO. 2/7/58, B.NO. 7,
LINGARAJCAMP, GANGAVATHI,
TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.
3. THE MANAGER,
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S/5, II FLOOR,
-2-
MUNERIUM CHAMBERS,
INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE.
4. THE MANAGER,
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1000, E-08, RII CO. INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GUNDI SURESH ADV. FOR
SRI NAGARAJ C KOLLOORI, ADV. FOR R3 & R4
R1 AND R2 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
09.12.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO. 614/2009 ON THE FILE
OF THE MEMBER, ADDL.MACT AND PRESIDING OFFICER,
FAST TRACK COURTI, KOPPAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 22427/2012
BETWEEN
GANGAMMA D/O YAMANOORAPPA
AGED: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE and COLIE
R/O. JABBALGUDDA,TQ and DIST: KOPPAL
APPELLANT
(BY SRI H. N. GULARADDI, ADV.)
AND
1. SANJEEVKUMAR S/O. LALASINGH
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF MINI LORRY
BEARING NO. KA-36/3334,
R/O LINGASGUR, TQ: LINGASUR,
DIST: RAICHUR
-3-
2. MANJUNATH S/O ERAPPA
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF MINI LORRY
BEARING NO.KA-36/3334,
R/O.H.NO.2/7/58, B-NO.7 LINGARAJ CAMP,
GANGAVATHI,TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL
3. THE MANAGER,
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, S/5, IIND FLOOR,
MUNERIUM CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD,
4. THE MANAGER,
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, 1000, E-08, RII CO.INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPUR,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN STATE
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GUNDI SURESHA ADV. FOR SRI NAGARAJ C.
KOLLOORI ADV. FOR R2 & R4
R1 AND R2 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD: 09.12.2010 PASSED IN
MVC NO. 613/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER,
ADDL.MACT AND PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK
COURT-I, KOPPAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.21832/2011
BETWEEN
THE MANAGER
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.1000,
E/08, RII COMPANY,
INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN STATE
-4-
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY, S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MUNERIUM CHAMBER,
INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE
MOBILE : 9743114114. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GUNDI SURESHA, ADV.)
AND
1. GANGAMMA D/O YAMNOORAPPA
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
and COOLIE, R/O JABBALAGUDDA, KOPPAL
2. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O LALASINGH
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF MINI LORRY
NO. KA-36/3334, R/O LINGSUR,
TQ: LINGSUR, DIST:RAICHUR
3. MANJUNATH S/O ERAPPA
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE
AND OWNER OF
MINI LORRY NO. KA-36/3334,
R/O H.NO. 2/7/58, B.NO.7 LINGARAJ CAMP,
GANGAVATHI, TQ: KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H. N. GULAREDDI, ADV. FOR R1
R2 DISPENSED WITH,
SRI C.R. HIREMATH ADV. FOR R3.)
THIS MFA FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF THE MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD: 09.12.2010
PASSED IN MVC NO. 613/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, AND PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT-I KOPPAL, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION
OF RS. 84,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSIT.
-5-
IN MFA NO.21833 OF 2011
BETWEEN
THE MANAGER,
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
LTD.1000, E/08, RII COMPANY, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN - STATE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MUNERIUM CHAMBER,
INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GUNDI SURESHA, ADV.)
AND
1 . VENKATESH S/O MALLAPPA
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURER/O JABBALAGUDDA,
KOPPAL
2 . MALLAPPA S/O KARIDYAMAPPA
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O JABBALAGUDDA, KOPPAL
3 . DURGAMMA W/O MALLAPPA
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O JABBALAGUDDA, KOPPAL
4 . SANJEEVKUMAR S/O LALASINGH
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF MINI LORRY
NO. KA-36/3334,
R/O LINGSUR,
TQ: LINGSUR,RAICHUR,
5 . MANJUNATH
S/O ERAPPA
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,AND
AGRICULTURE, AND OWNER OFMINI LORRY
-6-
NO. KA-36/3334, R/O H.NO. 2/7/58,
B. NO.7,LINGARAJ CAMP,
GANGAVATHI, DIST:KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.N.GULARADDI, ADV. FOR R1
R2, R3 & R5 ARE NOTICE SERVED
R4 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O/D 01.12.2015)
THIS MFA FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
09.12.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO. 614/2009 ON THE FILE
OF THE MEMBER, ADDL.MACT AND PRESIDING OFFICER
FAST TRACK COURT-I, KOPPAL, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.4,57,000/- WITH INTEREST AT
THE RATE OF 8% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though these appeals are listed for orders, with the consent of both the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. These four appeals are filed against the common Judgment and Award dated 9th December 2010 on the file of MACT and Fast Track Court No.I at Koppal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short). -7-
3. Claimants in MVC Nos.613/2009 and 614/2009 have filed MFA No.22427/2012 and MFA No.22248/2012, respectively. Insurance Company has also questioned the liability and quantum in MVC No.613/2009 and MVC No.614/2009 in MFA No.21832/2011 and MFA No.21833/2011, respectively.
4. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under:
Claim petitions came to be filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act contending that on 04.10.2009 at about 7.00 p.m, the claimants along with deceased Smt.Bheemawwa were traveling in an autorickshaw bearing No.KA-35/A-2679, near Boodgumpa Bus stand, the driver of Mini Lorry bearing No.KA-36/3334 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the autorickshaw, as a result, Smt.Bheemawwa died on the spot and other inmates of the autorickshaw, viz., Hanumawwa and Gangawwa (claimants in MVC Nos.612/2009 and 613/2009) sustained grievous injuries.-8-
Injured persons were shifted to Munirabad Government Hospital, so also the dead body of Bheemawwa.
5. It is further contended that Hanumawwa and Gangawwa having sustained the injuries in the road traffic accident, are unable to carry on their day to day work properly. Whereas the dependants of Bheemawwa have sought for awarding suitable compensation as contribution to the family of Bheemawwa is lost and so also, the domestic help which Bheemawwa was extending and sought for awarding suitable compensation. All the three petitions were taken up for common consideration before the Tribunal and the 2nd respondent who is the owner of the Mini Lorry denied the claim petition averments in toto. Respondent No.4-Insurance Company filed separate written statement denying the claim petition averments in toto and Tribunal raised the following issues in Claim Petition No.613/2009 and Claim Petition No.614/2009: -9- ISSUES IN MVC No.613/2009
"1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he sustained grievous injuries in the accident which occurred on dated 04.10.2009 at about 7.00 p.m., near Budagumpa Bus Stand due to rash and negligent driving of Mini Lorry bearing No.KA-36/3334, by its Driver/respondent No.1?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and, from whom?
3. What Order or Award? "ISSUES IN MVC No.613/2009
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he sustained grievous injuries in the accident which occurred on date: 04.10.2009 at about 7.00 p.m., near Boodgumpa Bus Stand, due to rash and negligent driving of Mini Lorry bearing No.KA-36/3334, by its Driver/respondent No.1?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and, from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
-10-
6. Joint trial was held before the Tribunal wherein claimant- Gangawwa got examined herself as P.W.1 and Venkatesh as P.W.2 and Noormohammad as P.W.3. Claimants relied on documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.7. On behalf of Insurance Company, Sri.Shivananda.R.S is examined as R.W.1. Claimants relied on seven documents marked as Exs.R1 to R7.
7. On cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, claim Petition in MVC No.612/2009 came to be dismissed; whereas claim petition in MVC Nos.613/2009 and 614/2009 were allowed by awarding a sum of Rs.8,41,000/- and Rs.4,57,000/-, respectively with interest at 8% p.a. It is those judgments which are subject matter of these appeals.
8. On behalf of the Insurance Company, Sri.Suresh S.Gundi vehemently contended that the Tribunal wrongly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company as admittedly, the Driver of the offending vehicle did not -11- possess valid driving licence to drive the transport vehicle and therefore, sought for allowing the appeals by exonerating the Insurance Company. He also contended that the quantum of compensation awarded is on the higher side and sought for reassessment of compensation.
9. Whereas Sri. H.N.Gularaddi, counsel for the claimant contended that in respect of the injured, the Tribunal did not properly assess the oral evidence placed on record and awarded meager amount and sought for enhancement of compensation. In sofaras MVC No.614/2009 where the case involved the death of Bheemawwa, counsel argued that Tribunal has wrongly taken into consideration the income of the deceased Bheemawwa at Rs.3,000/- which is on the lower side and sought for enhancement. He also contended that Tribunal did not take into consideration the future prospects of deceased and sought for awarding suitable compensation on the said head and also on the conventional heads, the -12- amount awarded is on the lower side and sought for enhancement.
10. In sofaras the contentions of the Insruance Company that the driver of the vehicle did not possess the valid driving licence, counsel for the claimants contended that the said ground would not be available in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MUKUND DEWANGAN vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 3668 and prayed for dismissal of the appeals of Insurance Company.
11. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following points would arise for consideration:
i) Whether the finding recorded by the Tribunal that Insurance Company is liable to pay the adjudged compensation to the claimants in MVC Nos.613/2009 and 614/2009 is erroneous?-13-
ii) Whether claimants in MVC Nos. 613/2009 and 614/2009 have made out a case for enhancement of the compensation?
12. The answer to point No.1 is in negative and point No.2 is partly in the affirmative for the following:
REASONS
13. In the case on hand, the accident in question involving autorickshaw bearing No. No.KA-35/A-2679 and the Mini Lorry bearing No. No.KA-36/3334 on 04.10.2009 at about 7.00 p.m, near Boodgumpa Bus stand is not in dispute. So also Bheemawwa having lost her life in the said accident is not in dispute.
14. The claim petition of Hanumawwa which is filed in MVC No.613/2009 came to be dismissed and there is no appeal and therefore, it has become final.
15. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition of another injured Gangawwa and the dependents of Bheemawwa as referred to supra. The main thrust of the -14- arguments put forth on behalf of the Insurance Company is that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the transport vehicle. Therefore, Insurance Company has to be exonerated. Whether the driver having a licence to drive an LMV is also allowed to drive a transport vehicle and meets with an accident and in such circumstances, whether the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle is also liable to pay the compensation is no longer res integra. In MUKUND DEWANGAN supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that a person possessing a licence to drive a light motor vehicle can also drive transport vehicle and in such circumstances, Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the accidental claim.
16. In the case on hand, driver of the offending vehicle had licence to drive the Mini Lorry bearing No. KA-36/3334 which is a transport vehicle. Accordingly, the contentions urged on behalf of the Insurance Company that Insurance Company is not liable to pay the adjudged -15- compensation cannot be countenanced in law. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.
17. Tribunal allowed the claim petition of injured in a sum of Rs.84,000/-. In the absence of any medical records placed before the Claims Tribunal, in the considered opinion of this Court, the amount adjudged by the Tribunal is just compensation. However, on the head of attendant charges, amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. On other heads also, Tribunal awarded compensation on the lower side. Instead of considering the case of the appellant on each heads, this Court is of the considered opinion that awarding a sum of Rs.16,000/- to injured globally could meet the ends of justice. To that extent, appeal of the claimant in MVC No.613/2009 succeeds.
18. In sofaras the dependants of Bheemawwa are concerned, the Tribunal has taken into consideration a sum of Rs.3,000/- as the income of the deceased notionally in the absence of formal proof of income. This -16- Court and Lok Adalaths would normally assess the income at Rs.5,000/- for the accidental claim of the year 2009. Further, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS (2017) 16 SCC 680), the dependants are entitled to 40% addition on the assessed notional income. Even under the conventional heads, the sum of Rs.70,000/- is ordered to be paid. Accordingly, amount of compensation payable to the dependants of Bheemawwa is to be reassessed as under:
1 Loss of dependency 10,08,072/-
Including future prospects 5000X40%=7000-2333 4667 x 12 x 18 = 2 Towards conventional heads 70,000/-
TOTAL 10,78,072/-
19. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered and the following order is passed:
-17-
ORDER in MFA No.21832/2011 and MFA No.21833/2011 MFA No. 21832/2011 and MFA No.21833/2011 (MVC No.613/2009 and MVC No.614/2009, respectively) filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed.
MFA No.22428/2012 filed by the claimant-Venkatesh in MVC No.614/2009 is allowed-in-part. In modification of judgment and award of the Tribunal, claimant in MVC No.614/2009 is entitled to enhancement of a sum of Rs.16,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. However, interest ordered by the Tribunal on Rs.84,000/- at 8% p.a., is kept intact.
The claimants in MVC No.613/2009 who are appellant before this Court MFA No.22427/2012 are entitled to a sum of Rs.16,000/- as enhanced compensation. They are entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. However, interest -18- ordered by the Tribunal on Rs.84,000/- at 8% p.a., is kept intact.
Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal.
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE bnv