Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Anantharam Singh on 27 September, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1997ACJ346, ILR1996KAR1088, 1996 A I H C 3005, (1996) 2 KANT LJ 402, (1996) 2 TAC 449, (1997) ACJ 346
Author: B. Padmaraj
Bench: B. Padmaraj
JUDGMENT Padmaraj, J.
1. This Appeal by the K.S.R.T.C. is directed against the judgment and award of M.A.C.T. Kolar, granting compensation of Rs. 50,754- 50 paise to the respondent herein, on account of the damage caused to the car bearing Registration No. CAS. 1061.
2. One A. Rajendra Singh was the owner of the car bearing No.CAS.1061. On the date of the accident, the deceased-Rajendra Singh was driving his car from Chintamani to Bangalore. When the said car came near Thalagavara Village, two K.S.R.T.C. buses came from the opposite direction and of them, the bus which was coming from behind the first-KSRTC bus, hit the car of the deceased. As a result of this accident, out of the 3 persons, who were travelling in the car, 2 of them, including the owner of the car Rajendra Singh, died, while one of the inmates of the car suffered injuries to his person. The car of the deceased-Rajendra Singh was heavily damaged due to this accident. Alleging that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the K.S.R.T.C., bus by its driver, the respondent herein filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 55,000/- for the damage caused to the car against the K.S.R.T.C. bus.
3. The appellant-KSRTC contested the claim of the respondent by filing its written statement.
4. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was the result of the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus. The Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 50,754-50 paise to the respondent herein.
5. We heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on both the sides and we have been carefully taken through the material evidence on record as well as the reasonings of the Tribunal.
6. We have also carefully read the following Decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent; -
1) 1987 ACJ 667 2) 1987 ACJ 111
3) 1987 ACJ 130 4) 1989 ACJ 425
5) 1991 ACJ 453
7. The sole Point for Determination in this Appeal is whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal can be sustained.
8. In the connected Appeal arising out of the judgment and award made in respect of the death of the deceased-Rajendra Prasad in M.V.C. No. 224/87, this Court has affirmed the finding on the question of actionable negligence recorded by the Tribunal and hence it has reached, its finality in so far as this Court is concerned and it cannot be reagitated in this Appeal. Therefore, for the self-same reasons given by this Court in the connected Appeal, we affirm the finding on the question of actionable negligence recorded by the Tribunal.
9. We shall now proceed to consider the question with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the damage caused to the car to the respondent herein.
10. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased-owner of the car. The evidence of P.W.1 in this behalf is that their car had comprehensive insurance. They received Rs. 74,000/- and odd from the Insurance Company. The car was taken over by the Insurance Company itself. Their claim was settled by the Insurance Company, with whom it had been insured for comprehensive risk in the month of July 1987. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 would say that he had never become the R.C. holder of the said car. He has stated that they had made a claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Insurer of their car. Ex.P~18 is the bill towards the purchase of the car for Rs. 1,18,760-55 paise and it would show that the car was hypothecated to the State Bank of India, Chintamani. Now, it will be relevant to refer to the letter dated 13.8.87 of the Insurer of the car to the State Bank of India with a copy marked to the respondent herein, as per Ex.P-20 which reads:
"The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chintamani Branch. dt. 13.08.87 Dear Sir, Re : Accdt. to Vehicle No. CAS 1061 on 18.02.87 claim No. 42134/MV/26/87 Insured: Mr. A.Rajendra Singh.
We refer to our letter dated 01.07.87 enclosing our cheque towards full and final settlement of the above claim. We had requested you to send us your letter addressed to the concerned R.T.O., cancelling your lien on the vehicle to enable us to dispose off the same. We regret to note, that inspite of your oral assurances and the assurance given by you vide your letter Ref.Mis. 87/67 dt. 30.06.87, we have still not received the H.P. cancellation letter from you.
Kindly arrange to send us the same immediately, Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sr. Divisional Manager, C.C.to: Mr. H.Anantharam Singh, C/o Vijayalakshmi Pharmacy M.G. Road, Chintarnani."
11. The letter dated 29.6.87 of the Senior Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company, with whom the car had been insured, to the Automobile Service Centre, Bangalore, would read thus;-
"The Automobile Service Centre, 12, Victoria Road, Bangalore-7 Dear Sirs, Re : Accident to Vehicle No. CAS. 1061 on 18.2.87. Our claim No. 42134/2MV/26-87 Insured: Late Mr. A. Rajendra Singh We refer to your letter No. ASC/1123/86-87 dated 27.3.87 in connection with the above damaged vehicle in your garage. We will settle the "own damage" claim with the State Bank of India, Chintarnani Branch, Kolar District. Whereby we will be the legal owner of the said vehicle. The settlement of the claim will be done shortly and hence you are requested to collect your garage dues for parking the vehicle till 30.6.87 from Dr. H. Anantharam Singh and settle his account. We will dispose off the said vehicle within a reasonable time in about a month and so and will also beat your charges towards parking in your garage from 1.7.87 till the date of your disposal of salvage. Please acknowledge receipt and forward your approval confirming your acceptance.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully,
C/C. to Dr. Anantharamsingh
Sd/- Dr. Divisional
Manager."
12. Ex.P-23 is a reply to the Insurer of the car by the Automobile Service Centre dated 30.6.87 and it reads thus:-
"The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office No. III KFC.Building Complex, I Floor, 48, Church Street, Bangalore-1.
Dear Sir, Sub : Accident to Vehicle No. CAS. 1061 on 18.2.87.
We have for acknowledgment your letter dated 29.6.87 informing us that you are settling the claim on "Own Damage" with the State Bank of India, Chintarnani Branch. You have also indicated in the letter that we should collect all our dues from the party up to 30.6.87 and garage rent at Rs. 10/- per day from 1.7.87 till the date of disposal will be paid by you.
We confirm having collected our dues from the party up to and including 30,6.07. We are keeping the car in as is where is condition till we receive written instructions regarding the disposal from you. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, for Automobile Service Centre, sd/- M. Dinesh Rao (Manager Adm) C/c to Mr. H. Anantharam Singh, we have already handed over to you our bill No. 4495, dated 29.6.87 for Rs. 2,500/-, we are herewith enclosing our cheque No. 403957 dated 30.6.87 for Rs. 2,500/- towards the balance amount due to you, from the deposit given by you. Kindly send us your receipt in acknowledgment."
13. The letter dated 1.7.87 of the Insurer to the State Bank of India with a copy marked to the respondent as per Ex.P-25 would read thus:-
"To The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chintamani Branch.
Re : Accident to Vehicle No CAS/1061 on 18.2.87.
Claim No. 42134/2/MV/26/87 Insured: Mr. A. Rajendra Singh Policy No. 42134/2/0/MV/28366.
We refer to your letter No. Misc./87/67 dated 30.6.87 in connection with above claim settlement. We enclose our cheque No. 334312 dated 1.7.87 for Rs. 74,625/- being our full and final settlement towards the above claim. We request you to issue your letter addressed to concerned RTO. to cancel your lien to facilitate disposal off by our office. Please acknowledge receipt. Thanking you.
y/f.
sd/- Asst.Div. Manager."
14. Ex.P-26 is the receipt issued, by the Bank with whom the car was hypothecated, to the Insurer of the car for having received the sum of Rs, 74,625-00 from the said Insurer. Ex.P-27 is the Certificate in the form of a letter issued by the State Bank of India dated 29.1.1991 and it reads thus:
"To whom so ever it may concern.
...........
We give below the particulars of medium term loan granted to Sri A. Rajendra Singh s/o Dr. H. Anantharam Singh, Chintamani for purchase of one Ambassador car bearing Registration No. CAS 1061.
1) Loan amount sanctioned Rs. 1,00,000/- 2) Amount received to account Rs. 1,15,554/95 3) Interest amount from 1.1.87 to 10.7.87 Rs. 5788.95 4) Amount receive^from Oriental Fire and Gen. Insurance Co. Rs. 74625-00 sd/- S.B.I., Sr. Manager Chintamani."
15. The above correspondence and the Certificate in the form of letter issued by the State Bank of India, Chintamani, would clearly go to show that they had received a sum of Rs. 74,625/- from the Insurer of the car and the title in the property had been passed to the Insurer of the car. This would also receive support from the admission made by P.W. 1 in his crass-examination that he had never become the R.C. holder of the car. He would further admit in the course of his evidence before the Tribunal that he had received Rs. 74,000/- and odd from the Insurance Company and the car was taken over by the Insurance Company itself. The evidence of P.W. 1 does not in any way disclose that he had spent any amount towards the repair charges of the damaged car.
16. In the above state of evidence, we find no justification for the Tribunal to award a compensation of Rs. 50,754-50 to the respondent herein. It is not the case of the respondent that he had incurred any expenses towards the repair charges of the damaged car, nor it is his case that he had suffered any loss on account of the sale of the damaged car to any person. On the other hand, it appears to be a case where the Insurance Company, with whom the car had been insured at the time of the accident, had settled the entire-claim of the deceased-owner of the car as well as the liability of the Bank, with whom the car had been hypothecated for the loan borrowed by the deceased. There is also a positive admission by P.W.1 himself that the car, was taken over by the Insurer itself and that he had never become the R.C. holder of the car. That being so, we are unable to sustain the Award made by the Tribunal in favour of the present respondent. Therefore, we are constrained to set-aside the judgment and award made by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent herein.
17. The Decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent have no application to the facts and peculiar circumstances of this case.
18. In the result, therefore, the Appeal filed by the K.S.R.T.C., is allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the M.A.C.T. Kolar in M.V.C. No. 223/87 dated 7.1.1993 is hereby set-aside. Parties to bear their own costs.