IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.6201/2019 (MV D) BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CBO.2, No.1/1, CONNAUGHT ROAD, QUEENS ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560 052.
BY ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE No.144, No.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY CROSS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025, BY ITS MANAGER APPELLANT (BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MAHADEVAMMA, AGE: 53 YEARS, W/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, 2. NAGESH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, 3. UMESH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, ALL ARE RESIDING AT ANGRAPALYA, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 571 511 4. MUDDEGOWDA, MAJOR, S/O MALLAIAH, R/A OLD GABBADI, KAGGALAHALLI POST, HOROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 511 ..RESPONDENTS THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC No.643/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KANAKAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,65,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 7.5% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Though the matter is listed for orders, considering the nature and circumstances of the case, I.A. No.1/2019 is allowed. Delay of 39 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 06.02.2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanakapura, in MVC No.643/2014, wherein the claim petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein came to be allowed in part and they have been granted compensation of Rs.7,65,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and the appellant - Insurance Company has been directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest.
3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties are addressed in accordance with the ranks assigned to them before the Tribunal.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.09.2012 at about 2:00 p.m., one Ravisha and another by name Nanjundappa were proceeding in a Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.KA-42-T3039-3040 as Coolies. The said Tractor was loaded with eucalyptus trees. The same was driven by its driver from Kanakapura towards Harohalli on Bengaluru - Kanakapura road. He drove it in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life without following the Rules and Regulations. When the said Tractor reached Huchegowdanadoddi village, Kanakapura Taluk, due to negligent driving, the driver lost control and the said Tractor turtled towards the left side of the road because of which, Ravisha and another by name, Nanjundappa, fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, they were taken to Kanakapura Government hospital, but on the way to the said hospital, Ravisha succumbed to the injuries. The claimants being the mother and brothers of deceased Ravisha sought for compensation.
5. The contention of the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is that the said Ravisha was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the Tractor and Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and that the liability could not have been saddled on the Insurance Company.
6. Learned Member of the Tribunal while disposing of the claim petition on liability has observed that respondent No.2 therein, who is the appellant herein, though admitted issuance of policy in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident, has not produced copy of the Insurance policy. Further, it was also the contention of the Insurance Company that the driver of the Tractor and Trailer did not possess valid and effective driving licence. The Administrative Officer of the second respondent - Insurance Company was examined as RW.1. The Tribunal has observed that the witness examined on behalf of the second respondent is not an eye-witness to the accident, but in the overall context and circumstances of the case, liability is fastened on the Insurance Company.
7. Learned Counsel, Sri O. Mahesh, appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company would submit that the deceased Ravish was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle and the same is in violation of the terms of the insurance policy. Thus, the contention of the appellant herein appears to be allegation for the sake of allegation without there being any substance in it.
8. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.7,65,000/- to the claimants. Out of the same, Rs.5,40,000/- is granted towards loss of dependency. However, the future prospects is not added to the income of the deceased. In the circumstances, the monthly income of deceased Ravisha is considered at Rs.5,000/-. 50% of the same is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, who was a bachelor. Considering the age of the deceased as 20 years on the date of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 18. Considering the judgment of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, it is incumbent that the compensation should have included future prospects. However, it is submitted that claimant Nos.2 and 3 are major brothers of deceased Ravisha and they were aged 28 years and 26 years respectively as on the date of the accident. In the circumstances, the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- is to be considered as inclusive of future prospects at 40%. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is to be restricted to Rs.70,000/-. In the circumstances, even if the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adjusted as against global compensation, the compensation of Rs.7,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants appears to be fair, just and proper. However, the learned Member is justified in fastening liability on the insurer of the offending vehicle and it does not call for interference. No grounds to proceed further. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.
In view of rejection of the appeal, the prayer sought in I.A. No.2/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration.
Hence, it is rejected.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE sma