Karnataka High Court
The Manager, The United India Insurance ... vs Smt.Meenakshi W/O Venkatesh on 14 February, 2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
M.F.A. No.21936/2013 (MV)
C/W
MFA.No.100150/2014
IN M.F.A. No.21936/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
N.K.COMPLEX,
KESHAWAPUR, HUBLI,
REPRESENTED BY
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
(LEGAL), REGIONAL OFFICE
HUBLI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A G JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT.MEENAKSHI W/O VENKATESH
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
2. KUMAR RANJEETKUMAR S/O VENKATESH
AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3. KUMARI.POOJA D/O VENKATESH
AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
RESPONDENT Nos.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
MINOR RPTD.BY THEIR MOTHER
:2:
NATURAL GUARDIAN, RESPONENT NO.1
SMT.MEENAKSHI W/O VENKATESH
ALL ARE R/O.DHARWAR,
C/O.V.S.HADAGALI, M.NAGAR,
BANAGAR ONI, DHARWAR
4. MANAGING DIRECTOR
VIJAYANAND ROAD LINES, NO.3,
N.K.COMPLEX KESHWAPUR,
HUBLI, OWNER OF VEHICLE
BEARING NO.REGISTRATION
NO.KA 25/2102
5. R.P.SHARMA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O.NO.62, VAJADAVAR ROAD,
PETTIYAR CHITRAM, PONDICHERY
DIST: JIND, STATE: TAMILNADU,
(OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.
REGISTRATION NO.CY.01/J-2573)
6. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
SUJATA COMPLEX, NEAR GLASS
HOUSE, HUBLI, POLICY NO.
250500/31/02/6707628
VALID FROM 8.1.2003 TO 7.1.2004
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R H ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1
RESPONDENT NOS.2 & 3 REP. BY R1
SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FRO R-4
RESPONDENT NO.5 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.12.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.351/2006 ON THE FILE OF
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III AT
DHARWAD, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,89,400/-
WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION.
:3:
IN MFA.No.100150/2014 (MV)
BETWEEN
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
VRL LOGISTICS LTD.,
NO.3, N.K. COMPLEX,
KESHAVAPUR HUBLI.
AT PRESENT
GIRIRAJ ANNEXE, CIRCUIAT HOUSE ROAD,
HUBLI-580 029, DIST: DHARWAD.
REPRESENTED BY
LEGAL ADVISOR & CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O VENKATESH,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. KUMAR RANJEETKUMAR
S/O VENKATESH,
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3. KUMARI POOJA D/O VENKATESH,
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
REP. BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
APPEALLANT NO.1
ALL ARE R/O: DWARA,
SRI V.S.HADAGALI,
M.NAGAR, BANAGAR ONI,
DHARWAD.
:4:
4. THE MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
N.K. COMPLEX,
KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
5. SRI R.P SHARMA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NO.62, VAJADAVAR ROAD,
PETTIYAR CHITRAM,
PONDICHERRY,
DIST: JIND, TAMILNADU STATE.
6. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
SUJATHA COMPLEX,
NEAR GLASS HOUSE,
HUBLI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M HOSMANI, ADV. FOR R1
RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS R/BY R-1
SRI A.G.JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR R-4
RESPONDENT NOS.5 & 6 ARE DISPENSED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DTD:27.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.351/2006 ON THE
FILE OF III FAST TRACK COURT, DHARWAD, AWARDING
THE COMPENSATION OF RS.4,89,400/- WITH INTEREST
AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL ITS REALISATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING UP FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:5:
JUDGMENT
With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2. MFA No. 21936/2013 is preferred by the Insurance Company, the insurer of the Lorry bearing registration No.KA-25/2102 against the award of compensation. Whereas, MFA No.100150/2014 is preferred by the owner i.e respondent No.1 in the main appeal against the compensation awarded by the III Fast Track Court, Dharwad, dated 27.12.2012 passed in MVC No.351/2006.
3. Both these appeals arise out of a common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC. No.351/2006. Hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. :6:
4. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
5. The brief facts of the case are that:
According to the petitioner on 27.06.2003 at 7.45 p.m. when deceased was going in a lorry bearing registration No.KA-25/2102 from Tumkur to Bangalore side, a driver of another vehicle bearing registration No.PY-01/Y-2573 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side i.e. from Bangalore to Tumkur on N.H.4 and caused the accident at Gundenhalli and on account of the same the husband of the petitioner No.1 i.e., deceased died at the spot itself. According to the petitioner the said accident took place due to the head on collision between the above said two lorries. At the time of accident, the deceased was holding driving licence to drive the heavy vehicle. All the petitioners who were the wife and children were depending on the income of the deceased who was earning Rs.40,000/- per :7: year and maintaining the family. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the said vehicle. Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company. Hence, both the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. As such, the petitioners who are wife and children of deceased have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the insurer and owner seeking compensation.
6. After service of summons, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 appeared before the Court and filed objections. Respondent No.3 has not placed appearance.
7. In support of claim, the petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-11. Respondent No.1 got examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R1 to R5. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,89,400/- under the following heads:
:8:
Sl.
Headings Amount
No.
1 Under the head loss of
dependency Rs.4,79,988/-
2 Towards funeral expenses Rs.2,000/-
3 Under the head loss of Rs.5,000 /-
consortium
4 Under the head loss of estate Rs.2,500/-
Total Rs.4,89,400/-
8. The Tribunal held that the petitioners are entitled for compensation amount of Rs. 4,89,400/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization.
9. As aforesaid, the insurer of the vehicle preferred MFA No.21936/2013, challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the owner-respondent No.1 has preferred MFANo.100150/2014 challenging the liability.:9:
10. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that the accident is head on collision, the liability has to be borne by both the vehicles which are involved in the accident. As such Sri A.G. Jadhav, learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal was not justified in asserting the United Insurance to bear all the responsibility. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submit that they were not entitled under Section 166(A) of Cr.P.C., and that was erroneously filed was got granted into the application under Section 163 of Cr.P.C.
11. It was submitted that the criminal case was registered and charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A against the deceased Venkatesh who died in the accident. Thus, it is stated, the lorry bearing registration No.PY-01/J-
2573 hit the other lorry from the rear side. In this connection the learned counsel submits that the police : 10 : have filed abated the charge sheet. Hence, the compensation should have been saddled on the opposite vehicle also.
12. It is also seen that the negligence is such a concept which has to be measured or assessed on the basis of the reaction or non-reaction of the persons involved in the accident. Further it is a breach of legal duty to take care of oneself and others as well. It is state of mind in difference, lack of responsibility.
13. Thus, insofar as the assessment of liability is concerned the final report submitted by the police cannot be treated as final declaration of the result of the investigation holding the accused named in the charge sheet is exclusively liable for negligence and answer the accident. At that end of the day, when filing the final report, the Investigating Officer submits that certain facts has contemplated Section 163 of : 11 : Cr.P.C., and certain section claiming with those set of facts, the accused committed the offence.
14. Regard being had to the fact, the proceedings in this case would start when the cognizance is taken by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Thus, the accused in this case is dead person, however that is not the point of adjudication for the purpose.
15. In this case, proceedings did not commence before the Tribunal for obvious reasons of death of accused and investigation being completed and accused was dead on the date of submitting the final report.
16. Above all these, the result of one proceeding under IPC in a criminal case cannot override the other. It is the point that each person is liable according to the nature of the proceedings conducted. In this connection the contention of learned counsel that the negligence ought to have been apportioned : 12 : between two Insurance Company's cannot be considered as it lacks justifiable.
17. It is not the mandate of law that the Tribunals have to accept the negligence causing accidents only in accordance with the finding of the criminal Court nor vice versa. In the context, keeping the matter in abeyance by planting the abated charge sheet.
18. Further in this case, it is stated that compensation was awarded under the MVC were initiated under Section 166 of Cr.P.C., However, in the later circumstances it was amended to 163 (A) petition. In my considered opinion, there is no lapse.
19. Here the point that has to be underlined is UB meridian Ubi jus ibi remedium, if the application is made under Section 166 of Cr.P.C., of the Motor Vehicle Act, which the claimant was not entitled by virtue of the persons of facts regarding the income or other facts. In such a case, the claimant is not totally : 13 : cannot be presented a box of vacuum because it was not made under different provision of law. The Motor Vehicle Act is a Social Legislation and the rights of the parties more particularly the victims of accident are entitled for compensation.
20. Thus, in the circumstances both the appeals are disposed of by holding that the liability of compensation as fixed by the Tribunal payable to the claimants by the Insurance Company stands confirmed and the Insurance Company cannot claim for dislodging it from the liability to compensate.
Thus, in clear terms in the light of the reasons stated above both the appeals are disposed of holding that the compensation granted is considered as just and proper. The liability rests on the Insurance Company to compensate the compensation and the claimants are entitled to withdraw the compensation of amount.
: 14 :
Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith for disbursement.
Sd/-
JUDGE msr