Karnataka High Court
The Manager Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., vs Anasuya W/O Mallappa Janaki on 27 January, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
M.F.A. No.20316/2013 [MV]
BETWEEN :
THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GEN. INS., CO., LTD.,
MAHADEV PLAZA,
CTS NO.10719, SY. NO.135/A,
NEAR KOLHAPUR CIRCLE
NEHRU NAGAR, BELGAUM
NOW REP. BY ITS DEPUTY
MANAGER LEGAL CLAIMS
CTS, 472-474, V A KALBURGI SQUARE
DESAI CIRCLE
DESHAPANDE NAGAR
HUBLI ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV.)
AND :
1 SMT. ANASUYA
W/O. MALLAPPA JANAKI
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
2 KUMARI DEEPAXI
D/O. MALLAPPA JANAKI
AGE: 27 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
3 SRI. MANJUNATH
S/O. MALLAPPA JANAKI
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED
-2-
4 SRI. VISHWANATH
S/O. MALLAPPA JANAKI
AGE: 23 YEARS
OCC: UNEMPLOYED
5 SRI. BHIMAPPA B. KALASANNAVAR
[DEAD BY HIS LRs]
5[A] SMT. SHRIDEVI
W/O. BHIMAPPA KALASANNAVAR
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. BALOBAL, TQ: GOKAK
DIST: BELGAUM ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.D. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1-R4;
R5A - SERVED)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1477/2011 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT,
BELGAUM, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.3,02,837/-
ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The Insurer is in appeal challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum [the 'Tribunal', for short] in MVC No.1477/2011.
-3-
2. The claim petition was filed by the claimants, namely, widow and children of deceased Mallappa Shankarappa Janaki, under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short), claiming compensation for the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 26.1.2010. Indisputably, the deceased was working as Assistant Agriculture Officer in Agriculture Department, Arabhavi Farm, Arabhavi Taluk, Gokak and drawing salary of more than Rs.30,000/- per month. It was the contention made by the claimants in the claim petition that though the deceased was drawing salary of more than Rs.3 lakhs per year, the claimants restricted the same as Rs.40,000/- per year so as to take shelter under section 163A of the Act. Based on the said pleadings, the Tribunal determined the total compensation of Rs.3,02,837/- under the different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the realization.
-4-
3. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company is in appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the factual aspects of the case in a right perspective wherein the claimants have categorically admitted that the deceased was earning more than Rs.3 lakhs per annum and as such the petition under section 163A of the Act was not maintainable.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would primarily contend that section 163A of the Act being a special provision based on the pre structured formula prescribes maximum of Rs.40,000/- as the annual income to consider the claim under section 163A of the Act. The Judgment and Order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the special provision of section 163A read with II-Schedule to the Act. Thus, the learned Counsel seeks for setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order.
-5-
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants supporting the impugned Judgment and order would contend that irrespective of the annual income of the victim of the road traffic accident, while opting for the benefits under section 163A of the Act, the annual income can be reduced to Rs.40,000/- to compute the loss of dependency. In other words, the learned Counsel submits that section 163A of the Act is not exclusively applicable to a class of victims whose annual income is less than Rs.40,000/-.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/insurance company, as well as the claimants and perusing the material on record, it emerges that the claimants filed claim petition under section 163A of the Act restricting the annual income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- despite the admitted fact that he was drawing salary of more than Rs.3 lakhs per annum. -6-
7. In terms of the II-Schedule to the Act read with section 163A of the Act, it is manifestly clear that Section 163A of the Act cannot be invoked when the annual income of the victim is more than Rs.40,000/-. This view is fortified by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'DEEPAL GIRISHBHAI SONI AND OTHERS v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., BARODA' reported in [2004] 5 SCC 385, the relevant paragraphs of which reads thus:
"51. The scheme envisaged under Section 163-A, in our opinion, leaves no manner of doubt that by reason thereof the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined finally. The amount of compensation payable under the aforementioned provisions is not to be altered or varied in any other proceedings. It does not contain any provision providing for set off against a higher compensation unlike Section 140. In terms of the said provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income per annum is Rs.40,000/- or less is covered thereunder -7- whereas Sections 140 and 166 cater to all sections of society
67. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala (2001) 5 SCC 175) has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala (supra) that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs.40,000/- per annum shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is upto Rs.40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act."
Thus it is clear that section 163-A of the Act is a special provision providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is upto Rs.40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. In view of the same, the arguments advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the claimants restricting the annual income of the deceased -8- at Rs.40,000/- against the salary drawn, more than Rs.3 lakhs per annum is totally ill founded.
8. In such circumstances, the Judgment and Order passed by the Tribunal awarding compensation under section 163A of the Act is not fit to be sustained.
9. Appeal is allowed with liberty to the claimants to file claim petition under section 166 of the Act, if they are entitled to.
The appellant/insurance company is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited before this Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-