Karnataka High Court
R T Lakshminarayan Setty vs P R Ramakrishna Gupta on 11 June, 2012
Bench: N.Kumar, H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA
MFA No. 10555/2006
C/w
MFA.Nos.10550, 10551, 10553, 10557, 10558,
6056 to 6058, 6060 to 6062/2006 (MVC)
IN MFA.10555/06:
BETWEEN:
1 R T LAKSHMINARAYAN SETTY
AGED ABOUT 70 YRS
R/O NO 63/9, I CROSS, V MAIN
CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE 38
2 SMT AHALYA W/O LAKSHMINARAYAN SETTY
AGED ABOUT 65 YRS
R/O NO 63/9, I CROSS, V MAIN
CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE 38.
...APPELLANTS
(By Sri. VARDHAMAN V GUNJAL, ADVOCATE )
2
AND :
1 P R RAMAKRISHNA GUPTA
S/O T V RAMACHANDRA GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 45 YRS
AKSHAYA KUTEEA, VII BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 42
2 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, DIVN NO 6
PAVITRA SOUTH AVENUE, IX MAIN
III BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE 41
3.THE ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION LIMITED, HYDERABAD(A.P.)
4.V.M. REDDY(Driver)
C/O.APSRTC DEPOT,
CHITTOR, TIRUPATHI(A.P.)
...RESPONDENTS
( By Sri. B C SEETHARAMA RAO FOR R2
By SRI.D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3
R-1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 5.12.2011
R-4 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
24.11.2005 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3193/97 ON THE FILE OF
XIX ADDL. SCJ, MEMBER, MACT,COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE(SCCH-17)
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
3
IN MFA.10550/06:
BETWEEN:
K.L. GURURAJ, 40 YEARS
S/O.K.L. LAKSHMI NARAYAN RAO
R/O NO 300, IX MAIN, HANUMANTHA NAGAR
BANGALORE 28
...APPELLANT
( By Sri. VARDHAMAN V GUNJAL, ADV. )
AND :
1 P R RAMAKRISHNA GUPTA
S/O T V RAMACHANDRA GUPTA
AGE MAJOR
AKSHAYA KUTEEA, VII BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 42
2 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BY IT'S BRANCH MANAGER, DIVN NO 6
"PAVITRA SOUTH AVENUE"
IX MAIN, III BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 41
3 THE ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT
APSRTC, CORPORATION LTD
HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI.B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-2
SRI.D. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 ANDR-4
R-1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 5.12.2011)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
24.11.2005 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3190/97 ON THE FILE OF
XIX ADDL. SCJ, MEMBER, MACT,COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE(SCCH-17)
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
4
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA.No.10551/06:
BETWEEN:
K.L. GURURAJ,
S/O.K.L. LAKSHMI NARAYAN RAO
R/O NO 300, IX MAIN,
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
LATE MRS. SUDHA GURURAJ
...APPELLANT
( By Sri. VARDHAMAN V GUNJAL, ADV. )
AND :
1 P R RAMAKRISHNA GUPTA
S/O T V RAMACHANDRA GUPTA
AGE MAJOR
AKSHAYA KUTEEA, VII BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 42
2 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BY IT'S BRANCH MANAGER, DIVN NO 6
"PAVITRA SOUTH AVENUE"
IX MAIN, III BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 41
3 THE ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT
APSRTC, CORPORATION LTD
HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
4.V.M. REDDY,
C/O.APSRTC DEPOT,
CHITTOR(A.P.) ... RESPONDENTS
5
(By SRI.B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI.D. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 AND R-4; R-1
NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 5.12.2011)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
24.11.2005 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3191/97 ON THE FILE OF
XIX ADDL. SCJ, MEMBER, MACT,COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE(SCCH-17)
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA.No.10553/06:
BETWEEN:
K.L. GURURAJ,
S/O.K.L. LAKSHMI NARAYAN RAO
R/O NO 300, IX MAIN,
HANUMANTH NAGAR
BANGALORE-19
...APPELLANT
( By Sri. VARDHAMAN V GUNJAL, ADV. )
AND :
1 P R RAMAKRISHNA GUPTA
S/O T V RAMACHANDRA GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
AKSHAYA KUTEEA, VII BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 42
2 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BY IT'S BRANCH MANAGER, DIVN NO 6
"PAVITRA SOUTH AVENUE"
IX MAIN, III BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 41
6
3 THE ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT
(APSRTC) CORPORATION LTD
HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
4.V.M. REDDY,
C/O.APSRTC DEPOT,
CHITTOR(A.P.)
... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI.B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-2
SRI.D. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3
R-1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 5.12.2011; R-4
NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 19.12.2011)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
24.11.2005 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3192/97 ON THE FILE OF
XIX ADDL. SCJ, MEMBER, MACT,COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE(SCCH-17)
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
In MFA No.10557/2006:
BETWEEN :
1 LAKSHMINARAYN SETTY.R.T.,
AGE; 70 YEARS
R/O NO.63/9, 1ST CROSS,V MAIN,
CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE 18.
2 AHALYA W/O LAKSHMINARAYAN SETTY
AGE;MAJOR,
R/O NO.63/9, 1ST CROSS,V MAIN,
CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE 18.
...APPELLANTS
( By Sri. VARDHAMAN V GUNJAL, ADVOCATE)
7
AND :
1 P R RAMAKRISHNA GUPTA
S/O T V RAMACHANDRA GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
AKSHAYA KUTEERA,
VII BLOCK, JAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE 42.
2 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
BY IT'S BRANCH MANAGER, DIVN,
NO.6,'PAVITRA SOUTH AVENUE',
IX MAIN, III BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 041.
3 THE ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION LTD., HYDERABAD,
ANDHRA PRADESH,
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4 V M REDDY
C/O. APSRTC DEPOT,
CHITTOOR, TIRUPATI
ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENTS
( By Sri. B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
Sri.D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; R-1 NOTICE
DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 5.12.11
R-4 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 19.12.11)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
24.11.2005 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3194/97 ON THE FILE OF
XIX ADDL. SCJ, MEMBER, MACT,COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE(SCCH-17)
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
8
IN MFA No.10558/2006
BETWEEN :
1 LAKSHMINARAYN SETTY
AGE;MAJOR,
R/O NO.63/9, 1ST CROSS,V MAIN,
CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE 18.
2 AHALYA W/O LAKSHMINARAYAN SETTY
AGE;MAJOR,
R/O NO.63/9, 1ST CROSS,V MAIN,
CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE 18.
...APPELLANT
( By Sri. VARDHAMAN V GUNJAL, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1 P R RAMAKRISHNA GUPTA
S/O T V RAMACHANDRA GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
AKSHAYA KUTEERA,
VII BLOCK JAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE 42.
2 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
BY IT'S BRANCH MANAGER, DIVN,
NO.6,'PAVITRA SOUTH AVENUE',
IX MAIN, III BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 041.
3 THE ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION LTD., HYDERABAD,
ANDHRA PRADESH,
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4 V M REDDY
C/O. APSRTC DEPOT,
CHITTOOR, TIRUPATI
ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENTS
9
( By Sri. B C SEETHARAMA RAO FOR R2;
R-1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O.DATED 5.12.11)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
24.11.2005 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3195/97 ON THE FILE OF
XIX ADDL. SCJ, MEMBER, MACT,COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE(SCCH-17)
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA No.6056/2006:
BETWEEN :
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
BANGALORE DO-VI, THROUGH ITS
REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING
COMPLEX, # 44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD
BANGALORE-560 025, REP.BY ITS
DEPT MANAGER P K RAMESH
...APPELLANT
( By Sri. B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1 K L GURURAJ
S/O.K N LAKSHMI NARAYAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
NO.300,9TH MAIN,
HANUMANTHANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 019
2 P R RAMAKRISHNA GUPTA
MAJOR, S/O.T.V.RAMACHANDRA GUPTA
'AKSHAYA KUTEERA', VII BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 042
10
3 THE ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION LTD., HYDERABAD
ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
( By Sri. VARDHAMAN V GUNJAL, ADV. FOR R1
SRI.D. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; R-2 NOTICE
DISPENSED WITH V/O.DATED 5.12.11)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
24.11.2005 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3190/97 ON THE FILE OF
XIX ADDL. SCJ, MEMBER, MACT,COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE(SCCH-17)
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,45,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
ITS DEPOSIT.
In MFA No.6057/2006
BETWEEN :
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
BANGALORE DO-VI,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALOE 25, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY
MANAGER SRI P K RAMESH.
...APPELLANT
( By Sri. B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV)
AND :
1 K L GURURAJ
S/O K N LAKSHMI NARAYAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.300,9TH MAIN
HANUMANTHANAGAR,
BANGALORE 19.
11
2 SRI P R RAMAKRISHNA GUPTA
MAJOR,
S/O T V RAAMCJANDRA GUPTA,
'AKSHAYA KUTEERA',
VII BLOCK JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE 42,
3 THE ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION LTD,,
HYDERABAD ANDHRA PRADESH,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
( By Sri. V V GUNJAL, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI.D. VIJAY KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-3
R-2 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 5.12.11)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
24.11.2005 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3191/97 ON THE FILE OF
XIX ADDL. SCJ, MEMBER, MACT,COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE(SCCH-17)
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.6,25,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
ITS DEPOSIT.
IN MFA No.6058/2006
BETWEEN :
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
BANGALORE-DO-VI
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX
# 44/45, RESIDENCY RD
BANGALORE, R/BY DEPUTY MANAGER
RAMESH P K
...APPELLANT
( By Sri. B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV. )
12
AND :
1 SRI K L GURURAJ
S/O K L LAKSHMI NARAYAN RAO
43 YEARS, # 300, 9TH MN,
HANUMANTHANAGAR
BANGALORE-19.
2 SRI P R RAMAKRISHNA GUPTA
S/O T V RAMACHANDRA GUPTA
MAJOR
'AKSHAYA KUTEERA'
VII BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-42
3 THE ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION LTD
HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH
R/BY ITS MD
...RESPONDENTS
( By Sri. D VIJAY KUMAR, ADV FOR R3;
R-2 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O.DATED 5.12.11)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
24.11.2005 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3192/97 ON THE FILE OF
XIX ADDL. SCJ, MEMBER, MACT,COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE(SCCH-17)
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,57,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
ITS DEPOSIT.
In MFA No.6060/2006
BETWEEN :
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
BANGALORE DO-VI,
THORUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
13
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE
560 025, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER
P K RAMESH.
...APPELLANT
( By Sri. B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE )
AND :
1 R T LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY
MAJOR, S/O THIPPAIAH SETTY
R/AT NO.63/9, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
I CROSS, 5TH MAIN, CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE 18.
2 SMT AHALYA
MAJOR, W/O SRI R T LAKSHMINARAYANA
R/AT NO.63/9, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
I CROSS, 5TH MAIN, CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE 18.
3 SRI P R RAMAKRISHNA GUPTA
S/O T V RAMACHANDRA GUPTA
MAJOR
R/AT 'AKSHAYA KUTEERA',
VII BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 042.
4 THE ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION LTD
HYDERABAD, ANDHRAPRADESH,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
( By Sri. V V GUNJAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2;
SRI.D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-4
R-3 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DT.5.12.11)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
24.11.2005 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3193/97 ON THE FILE OF
XIX ADDL. SCJ, MEMBER, MACT,COURT OF SMALL
14
CAUSES, METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE(SCCH-17)
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,87,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
ITS DEPOSIT.
In MFA No.6061/2006
BETWEEN :
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
BANGALORE DO-VI, THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX
# 44/45, RESIDENCY RD, BANGALORE
R/BY ITS DEPUTY
MANAGER P K RAMESH.
...APPELLANT
( By Sri. B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE )
AND :
1 SRI R T LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY
S/O THIPPAIAH SETTY
MAJOR
R/A # 63/9, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY
I CROSS, 5TH MN, CHAMRAJPET
BANGALORE
2 SMT AHALYA
W/O SRI R T LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY
MAJOR
R/A # 63/9, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY
I CROSS, 5TH MN, CHAMRAJPET
BANGALORE-18
3 SRI P R RAMAKRISHNA GUPTA
S/O T V RAMACHANDRA GUPTA
MAJOR,
'AKSAHAYA KUTEERA'
VII BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-42
15
4 THE ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD
TRANSPORT COPRN LTD
HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH
R/BY ITS MD
...RESPONDENTS
( By Sri. V V GUNJAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1-2;
Sri.D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4
R-3 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O.DATED 5.12.11)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
24.11.2005 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3194/97 ON THE FILE OF
XIX ADDL. SCJ, MEMBER, MACT,COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE(SCCH-17)
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,90,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
ITS DEPOSIT.
IN MFA No.6062/2006:
BETWEEN :
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
BANGALORE DO-VI,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALOE 25, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY
MANAGER SRI P K RAMESH.
...APPELLANT
( By Sri. B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1 SRI R T LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY
S/O THIPPAIAH SETTY
MAJOR,
R/AT 63/9 RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
I CROSS, 5TH MAN CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE 18.
16
2 SMT AHALYA
W/O SRI R T LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY
MAJOR,
R/AT NO.63/9, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
I CROSS, 5TH MAIN CHAMARAJEPT
BANGALORE 18
3 SRI P R RAMAKRISHNA GUPTA
MAJOR,
S/O T V RAMACHANDRA GUPTA,
'AKSHAYA KUTEERA',
VII BLOCK JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE 42,
4 THE ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION LTD,,
HYDERABAD ANDHRA PRADESH,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
( By Sri. V V GUNJAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI.D. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
R-3 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED.5.12.11)
-0-0-0-0-
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
24.11.2005 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3195/97 ON THE FILE OF
XIX ADDL. SCJ, MEMBER, MACT,COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE(SCCH-17)
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,00,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
ITS DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY N.KUMAR, J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
17
JUDGMENT
These 12 appeals arise out of the same accident resulting in six claim petitions which are clubbed together, common evidence was recorded and a common award was passed. Against the said common award the claimants have preferred appeals seeking enhancement of compensation. The Insurance Company has preferred appeals challenging the maintainability of the claim petitions as well as the quantum of compensation and also the apportionment of actionable negligence between the Insurance Company and the APSRTC.
2. It is to be noticed that there was one more claim petition filed by the claimants claiming compensation for the death of the driver of the car. In respect of which no appeal is filed either by the claimants or by the Insurance Company. 18
3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition.
4. Sri.K.L.Gururaj, his wife Sudha, daughter Siri, and L.Shivaprasad, his wife Shylaja and daughter Nikhita were all returning in a car bearing Registration No.Ka-05-N-5412 to Bangalore after having darshan of Lord Venkateshwara at Tirumala. Their family friend Sathyanarayana Gupta was driving the car. The car is owned by his brother. When the car was moving on Alipiri Cherolapalli Bypass road between Zoo park and science centre, it is the case of the claimants that the driver of the car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-09-Z-7964, which was coming from the opposite direction. The driver of the APSRTC was also driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, came on the right side of the road, and then dashed against the car. Due to this impact, the inmates of the 19 car sustained grievous injuries. The driver of the car P.N.Sathyanarayana Gupta, Sudha Gururaj died on the spot and the others succumbed to the injuries at the hospital. Only K.L.Gururaj survived. Sri. K.L.Gururaj has preferred the claim petition claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said motor vehicle accident, which is numbered as MVC.No.3190/97. His claim petition claiming compensation for the death of his wife Sudha and daughter Siri is numbered MVC.No.3191/97 and 3192/97 respectively. The parents of Shivaprasad have preferred three claim petitions in MVC.Nos.3193/97, 3194/97 and 3195/97 claiming compensation for the death of their son Shivaprasad, daughter-in-law-Shylaja and their grand daughter Nikitha Shivaprasad.
5. After service of notice, the owner of the car- P.R.Ramakrishna Gupta-first respondent and the insurer-Oriental Insurance Company-2nd respondent, the APSRTC which owned the bus-3rd respondent and 20 Sri.V.M.Reddy, driver of the bus-4th respondent entered appearance and contested the claim petitions.
6. They did not deny the accident. The insured and the Insurance Company contended that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus whereas the APSRTC and its driver contended that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car. They also disputed the claim made in each of the claim petitions. However, the Insurance company did not dispute the insurance coverage of the car in question. On the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
ISSUES IN MVC.3190/97
1.Whether petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident on 6.4.1997 at about 9.00 A.M. at a place near Thirupathi, A.P., on account of actionable negligent driving of drivers of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-09-Z-7964 and car bearing Car No.KA-
05-N-5412?
21
2.Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for?
3.What order?
ISSUES IN MVC.3191, 3192, 3193, 3194 & 3195/97
1.Whether petitioners proves that Sudha, Siri, Shivaprasad, Shylaja and Nikitha succumbed to the injuries in a road traffic accident on 6.4.1997 at about 9.00 A.M. at a place near Thirupathi, A.P., on account of actionable driving of drivers of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-09-Z-7964 and car bearing Car No.KA-05-N- 5412?
2.Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for?
3.What order?
ISSUES IN MVC.3573/1997
1.Whether petitioner proves that one P.R.Satyanarayana Gupta succumbed to injuries in road traffic accident on 6.4.1997 at about 9.00 A.M. at a place near Thirupathi- Chittor Bypass Road, 66th K.M.Stone, in the limits of Muthiyalareddypally Police Station on account of 22 actionable driving of drivers of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-09-Z-7964?
2.Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for?
3.What order?"
7. All the claim petitions were clubbed and common evidence was recorded. To substantiate the claim, the claimant- K.L.Gururaj was examined as P.W.1 and the claimant R.T. Lakshminarayana Shetty was examined as P.W.2 and the doctor examined to speak about the injuries sustained and the disability of Sri.K.L.Gururaj was examined as P.W.3 by name Dr.Kiran and 35 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P35. On behalf of the respondents, driver of APSRTC bus-fourth respondent was examined as R.W.1 and an official of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.2 and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4.23
8. The Tribunal on consideration of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record held the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the car and the bus. It further held that it is the case of contributory negligence. Further, it has recorded a categorical finding that in the claim petition it is specifically averred that the driver of the car drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the APSRTC bus whereas the claimant-K.L.Gururaj in his evidence deposed that the accident occurred solely on account of negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus, which was rightly not accepted by the Tribunal. Taking into consideration the evidence of the driver of the APSRTC bus, the police records, photographs produced, it was of the view that it is the driver of the car who took the car to the extreme right side and dashed against the APSRTC bus. Therefore, it apportioned the contributory negligence of the driver of the car and the driver of the bus in the proportion of 70:30. Thereafter, it proceeded 24 to consider the claim of each of the claimants and has awarded compensation in all these cases. Aggrieved by the award as aforesaid both the claimants and the insurance company are in appeals.
9. Learned counsel for the insurance company assailing the impugned order contended that in each of the claim petitions the amount claimed is more than Rs.40,000/- per annum. Therefore, the claim filed under Section 163(A) of the MV Act is not maintainable. In order to appreciate the said contention, we looked into the claim petitions. The claimant has categorically stated that the claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the MV Act. If both the provisions are invoked by the claimants and the amount claimed is in excess, then the petition filed is to be treated as one under Section 166 of the M.V.Act and not under Section 163(A) of the M.V.Act. The claim petition preferred under Section 163(A) cannot be dismissed. Moreover if really the parties understood this petition is filed under Section 25 163 (A) of the MV Act, the question of proving negligence of the driver does not arise. The claimants have adduced evidence regarding negligence. The respondents have examined the driver of the bus to speak about the negligence. Gururaj has also spoken about the negligence. Cross-examination has been done on that aspect. Thereafter, the trial Court has recorded categorical finding that the accident has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of both the car as well as bus and thus apportioned the contributory negligence at 70% and 30%. Both the parties and the Court was of the view that it is the petition under Section 166 and not under Section 163(A). Therefore, the contention of the insurance company that this claim petition is not maintainable is without any basis.
10. Insofar as the claimants' appeals seeking enhancement of compensation is concerned, let us consider the claims in respect of each claim petitions. MVC No.3190/1997 is a claim petition filed by Gururaj 26 claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in Appeal No.10550/2006. His grievance is that in the aforesaid accident he sustained grievous injuries. The medical record produced in this case coupled with the evidence of PW.3 shows that the claimant Gururaj sustained head injuries, severe injuries to chest, right thigh and pelvis and was initially admitted to SVRR hospital on 6.04.1997 and referred for ventilatory management to the SVIMS, Tirupathi. He had suffered communited fracture of mid shaft of right femur with displacement and longitudinal splitting of the distal fragment. He was treated at S.V. Institute of Medical Science for Flail Chest (bilateral) with intercostal drain and tracheotomy and was incubated and connected with ventilator and other treatment were also given. There tracheotomy was done on 12.04.1997. There was presence of bilateral flail chest, right side 2 to 6 and left side 3 to 5 ribs were fractured. From the SVIMS the patient was referred to Chaya Nursing Home, Bangalore for further treatment. As per records, 27 Dr.Dilip, Dr.Bharadwaj, and Dr.Abha Chandra of SVIMS Thirupati have treated the petitioner at SVIMS Hospital. After initial treatment for injury of right thigh at Chaya Nursing Home on 21.4.1997 he was referred to Manipal Hospital for further treatment. When he was admitted to Manipal Hospital tenderness over rib fracture, 2nd to 8th on right side and 3rd to 7th on left side, there were multiple abrasion over face, right LL, swelling of thigh and thomas splint fixed skeletal traction. At Manipal Hospital, Gururaj was treated including under GA, G.K.Nailing of (R) femur on 22.4.1997, both proximal and distal locking were also done. On 23.4.1997 he was discharged from Manipal hospital as he was advised and referred back to Chaya Nursing Home. On the same day itself, he was re-admitted to Chaya Nursing Home for further treatment. When he was re-admitted, he was in respiratory distress. Dr.K.Srinivasan, DR.V.S.Srikanth and Dr.P.Bhattacharjee at Chaya Nursing Home treated the petitioner. Tracheotomy tube was closed on 26.4.1997. There was tenderness over the 28 2nd to 9th ribs of right and left side i.e., 2nd to 8th ribs of right side and 3rd to 7th ribs of left side and right femur middle 1/3. Gururaj was an inpatient initially at SVIMS from 7.4.1997 to 20.4.1997, at Chaya Nursing Home from 18.4.1997 to 21.4.1997, at Manipal Hospital from 21.4.1997 to 23.4.1997 and again at Chaya Nursing Home from 23.4.1997 to 4.5.1997. On 19.8.1998 he was operated for removal of implants. X-ray shows the fracture of ribs, which are malunited. He gets breathlessness on exertion and assessed the disability at 5% plus 20% to the chest. There is shortening of right leg by 1 cm. He walks with a limp. There is scar over right thigh. He has pain in the hip on walking and climbing stairs. The flexion of right hip is restricted by 200 in its terminal movements and extension by 100 in its terminal movements. Therefore, the doctor assessed the disability at 20% + 5% to the right leg. He was of the view that the total disability was to the whole body is 35%. In the cross-examination he has deposed that the fracture of femur is united as per the report. He also 29 denied that the disability assessed by him is on higher side and exorbitant. The Tribunal took note of the medical evidence on record. But unfortunately, it proceeded on the assumption that as the claimant is continuing with his business and there is no evidence to show that it is closed and also there is nothing to show that his income is reduced by his business, he is not entitled to compensation under the heading loss of future earning capacity. It is that finding, which is assailed in this appeal.
11. From the aforesaid materials, it is clear that the injuries are not in dispute. The treatment given to him in three hospitals is also not in dispute. Even the disabilities to the chest and limb appear to be reasonable and supported by medical evidence on record. However, it is difficult to accept the evidence of the doctor that the total disability for the entire body is 35% merely because, the injured has not closed his business nor he is continuing in business nor he had 30 adduced any evidence to show that his income has been reduced. It is not possible to hold that the injuries sustained by the claimant has no effect on his ability to carry on his business and no way affected to his business. The claimant is aged about 33 years. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment given, at this point of time being a youth he is able to stand and survive. In this connection, learned counsel for the APSRTC pointed out the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subashchand Jain V. Gangapthi and Another reported in ILR 2002 KAR 3355, in support of his contention to the effect that the loss in a business if has to be compensated should have been as a result of the injury and the consequent handicap which directly affects the management of the business. It is also necessary that in the first instance the income from the business should have been proved cogently and then there should be further material to indicate as to what would be the income from that business which has been 31 reduced because of the injury. In the absence of any convincing and cogent material on this aspect either with regard to the exact amount of income or the exact loss of such income, they were not inclined to award any amount by applying the principles which are called into aid in determining the loss of future earning in respect of a person who earns income by physical labour and whose bodily injury directly affects the work and earning capacity of such person. The loss attributable due to the physical disability resulting in loss of earning is different from the loss, which can be attributed to earning capacity from a business. Therefore, in the facts of the case this Court held that before compensation is awarded under the heading loss of future income, there should be a calculation of the income. The income of the claimant from the business and after the accident what would be the reduction in the income and the principles, which are applicable to determine the loss of future earning in respect of a person who earns income by physical labour, cannot 32 apply the same principles. In the instant case the material on record shows the claimant has sustained fracture of ribs. He was inpatient in three hospitals for considerable time. He has been operated. He has undergone pain and agony. His entire family is wiped in the accident. He has no option to continue to his business. The medical evidence shows his disability. Under these circumstances, merely because, he is carrying on his business, no evidence is placed for loss of reduction in the income, he cannot be denied the benefit of loss of future income. In that view of matter, we hold in the facts of this case, the claimant is entitled to compensation under the heading loss of future income. The Tribunal has determined his income at Rs.8,000/- per month. On the basis of the material on record, we do not find any justification to take a contrary view of the said finding of the fact. If the income is taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m., his age as 33 years, from the evidence on record the disability at 15%, then the compensation payable under the heading loss of 33 future earning would be Rs.2,30,400/-. As the tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the aforesaid head, we award a sum of Rs.2,30,400/- under this head. In all other aspects, the compensation awarded is just and proper and does not call for interference accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
12. Insofar as the claim of Gururaj, claiming compensation for the death of his wife Sudha Gururaj i.e. in MVC No. 3191/1997, the arguments of the claimant was she was an income tax assessee. In addition, she was also working as partner in partnership firm and getting the salary of Rs.6,000/- p.m. In order to substantiate her income, income tax returns are filed. The Tribunal has taken her income at Rs.5,000/- per month, applied the multiplier of 15, awarded a sum of Rs.6,25,000/- as compensation. The contention is that in the light of the income tax returns the tribunal has erred in taking her income at Rs.5,000/- per month. In addition to her salary and she 34 was also a house wife. As a house wife her income would have been Rs.3,500/- p.m. and she was also getting income by way of profits from the partnership firm which are not taken into consideration. Therefore, the impugned award is on the lower side and requires to be enhanced.
13. One of the factor noticed by the Tribunal is that the income tax returns are filed after her death. Secondly, when she dies, in order to calculate the loss of dependency, the question of taking the notional income as a housewife would not arise. The notional income of a housewife is taken in the absence of any of the evidence to show her income or that she was working elsewhere. Once it is shown she is working out side and she was getting a salary, if she dies it is only the salary which is taken into consideration and not the notional income of the house-wife. In those circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in taking her income at Rs.5,000/- per month deducting 1/3rd of the 35 same, applied the higher multiplier and awarded a sum of Rs.6,25,000/- as compensation under the said head, which do not call for any interference. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded for the death of his wife is just and equitable and do not call for any interference. Accordingly, MFA No.10551/2006 is dismissed.
14. He has also preferred a claim petition claiming compensation for the death of his daughter Siri in MVC No.3192/1997. Admittedly, Siri was aged 4 ½ years on the date of her death. Therefore, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,57,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. It was submitted that the compensation awarded to the minor is around Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.2,50,000/- i.e. for future which the courts have taken recently. The accident in question is of the year 1997. Then the amount of compensation awarded for 36 the death of his child is only Rs.1,57,000/- . Therefore, the tribunal is justified in awarding the said amount and the same do not call for any interference. Consequently, MFA No.10553/2006 is devoid on merit, hence it is dismissed.
15. In the other three cases the claimants are one R.T.Lakshminarayana Setty and his wife Ahalaya. They have preferred a claim petition in MVC No.3193/1997 claiming compensation for the death of their son Shivakumar in the accident. The tribunal has taken into consideration the income of Shivakumar at Rs.7,000/- per month, though the claim was the deceased Shivakumar was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The claimants have relied on the income tax returns for the year 1996-97, which has marked as Ex.P.20 where his income is shown as Rs.1,13,031/- and from the same, Rs.10,000/- was deducted towards income tax and again the tax returns for the year 1995- 96 shows the income of deceased at Rs.1,04,056/-. 37 These are all returns filed subsequent to the death of the deceased. In that circumstances, the tribunal was justified in taking the income at Rs.7,000/- and in fact, instead of deducting 2/3rd it has deducted only 1/3rd. Deductions should have been 2/3 and applied the multiplier of 10 and awarded a sum of Rs.5,87,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of this case, even if it is to be treated as Rs.7,000/- per month on the lower side, when instead of deducting 2/3rd, 1/3rd is deducted and higher multiplier 10 is taken. Moreover the compensation awarded at Rs.5,87,000/- is just compensation for the death of their deceased son and therefore, we do not see any justification to interfere with the award passed by the tribunal.
16. It was further contended that even in respect of business taking into consideration the young age, 30% has to be added towards future income. As stated earlier instead of deducting 2/3rd, 1/3rd is deducted. Instead of taking the multiplier of 9, 10 is applied and 38 that takes care of all the amount which the claimants are entitled to on account of death of their son. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, MFA No.10555/2006 is devoid on merit and it is dismissed.
17. They have also preferred a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of their daughter in law. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. Again it has deducted only 2/3rd and taken loss of income at Rs.6,000/- per month and has awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. Though wrongly mentioned towards loss of estate when the son is living with his wife, children and parent, 75% of the said income has to be deducted towards personal expenses and only 25% has to be taken as they are concerned for awarding compensation. But a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities, though it is incorrectly mentioned as loss to the estate. 39 When the parents are living with their son, it is natural they are depending on their son. Accordingly, though the daughter-in-law is also earning and she died, it is difficult to accept that they were depending on their daughter-in-law. But unless the tribunal has deducted 75% of the daughter in law's income towards her personal expenses and takes 25% as contribution to the joint family, which would be the total compensation the claimants are entitled to, which is reasonable. In that view of the matter, the judgment and award passed by the tribunal do not calling for interference. Hence, we do not find any error in appeal No.10557/2006* and it is liable to be dismissed.
18. They also preferred one more claim petiton claiming compensation for the death of their grand daughter, aged about 4½ years. The tribunal has awarded Rs.1 lakh as loss of dependency to the grand- parents, which in our view is just and do not call for interference. In that view of the matter, the appeal also * Corrected vide chamber order dt.6-11-2012 40 requires to be dismissed. In that view of the matter we proceed to pass the following order;
19. MFA 10550/2006 is partly allowed, in addition to what has been awarded by the tribunal the claimant is entitled to additional amount of Rs.2,30,400/- with interest at 6% pa. from the date of petition till the date of payment.
20. All other appeals are dismissed.
Amount deposited by the insurance company at the time of preferring of the appeal shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith for being paid to the claimant.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/- SA