Karnataka High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Gowramma Since Dead By Her Lr M ... on 19 April, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
M.F.A.No.842/2009(MV)
BETWEEN:
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ZENITH HOUSE, KESHAVA RAO KHADYE MARG
OPP:RACE COURSE, MAHALAKSHMI
MUMBAI -34.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGER-LEGAL
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
#89, II FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA,
BENGALURU-68 ..APPELLANT
(BY SRI A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.SMT GOWRAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LR
M VENKATESH
S/O MADESH & GOWRAMMA
NOW AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/A GOPALAPPA COMPOUND
HOODI VILLAGE
BENGALURU-48
2
2.MADDIREDDY
S/O YARAPPA
MAJOR
GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE,
MINDIGAL POST
CHINTHAMANI TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1,
SRI G M SRINIVASA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 29.08.2008 PASSED
IN MVC NO.2094/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL.
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-V,
BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
`3,88,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 29.08.2008 passed in MVC No.2094/2006 by the VIII Additional Judge, Member, MACT-5, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. 3
2. This appeal is filed by the insurance company seeking to set aside the Judgment and award dated 29.08.2008 passed in MVC No.2094/2006.
3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping the parties hereinafter are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
4. Claim petition in MVC No.2094/2006 came to be allowed in part and compensation of `3,88,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. was granted to the dependent.
5. The incident that gave raise to the proceedings is that on 18.02.2006 at about 1.45 P.M. when Lokesh was discharging his duty as coolie in a Tractor and Trailor bearing registration No.KA-07-1383, at that time, the driver of the said Tractor and Trailor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and due to 4 rash driving, the tractor turned turtle, due to that Lokesh fell down and the Tractor fell on him, due to crush injuries the said Lokesh died on the spot. Case registered in Crime No.19/2006 at Whitefield Police Station under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC.
6. Learned Member considered the aspects in respect of accident, negligence, injury and death and on the feed back of evidence of PW-1 and RW-1, documentary evidence Exhibits P-1 to 8 and R-1 to R- 5 granted compensation of `3,88,500/- and the break up is as under:
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT `
Loss of dependency 3,84,000/-
Funeral and obsequies 2,000/-
Loss of estate 2,500/-
TOTAL 3,88,500/-
5
7. The main contention opposing grant of
compensation is regarding liability on the part of the insurance company. As point out by Sri A.N.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for insurance company in the course of his submission that the amount of compensation depends on the entitlement. In this connection misuse of the policy invariably disentitles the claimant for the very reason the victim was made to sit adjoining the driver on the prohibited area as it is exclusively for the driver and none else. In the circumstances, victim is stated to have traveled on the space adjacent to driver which was not allowed.
8. Sri Shripad V Shastri, learned counsel for claimant would submit that the policy covers carrying of a coolie also and `D' policy explains by itself that 6 the insurance was available for commercial purpose as well.
9. In the whole set of circumstances considering the policy coverage regarding the purpose and travel for coolie, I find that the liability did vest on the insurance company.
10. Insofar as grant of compensation is concerned, the monthly income is considered at `3,000/- per month. It is to be noted that petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the one compared to claim under Section 166 is totally different with separate yard stick in the matter of negligence. Thus, the break up of compensation approved by the learned Member towards loss of dependency and conventional heads is as under:
7
`3,000x12=36,000/- deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of `16' = 24,000x16 = `3,84,000/- and `4,500/- towards conventional heads.
Thus, I do not find that modification of the finding either on the ground of liability or quantum is required. Compensation appears to be just and sufficient. Interference with the Judgment and award dated 29.08.2008 passed in MVC No.2094/2006 is uncalled for. Appeal is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE SBN