IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A. No.6036 of 2019 (MV) BETWEEN:
The Claim Manager Sriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipura, Rajasthan, - 302 022.
By Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., 5/4, 3rd Cross, S.V. Arcade, Belakanahalli Main Road, Opp: Banneraghatta Main Road, II M.B. Post, Bengaluru – 560 076. (By Sri. O. Mahesh, Advocate) AND:
1. Smt. Roopashree .C Aged about 28 years, W/o late Shashikumar D.L.
2. Gouthami D.S., Minor, Aged about 8 years, D/o late Shashikumara D.L.
.. . Appellant 3. Smt. Lakshmamma, Age 52 years, W/o late Lakshminarayana, 4. Sri. Lakshminarayana Aged about 60 years, S/o late Kempaiah, Respondent No.2 is minor, Represented by her Natural Guardian Mother Roopashree .C All are R/at No.66, Dibbur, Kakolu Post, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru – 560 089.
Sri. Shivanna Since dead by his LR’s 5. Smt. Rathnamma Aged about 59 years, W/o Shivanna, 6. Sri. Sreedhar .S Aged about 37 years, S/o late Shivanna, 7. Sri. Prakash .S Aged about 35 years, S/o late Shivanna, 8. Sri. Santhosh Kumar .S Aged about 33 years, S/o late Shivanna, 5 to 8 are R/at No.123, Kabbalamma Nilaya, Vinayaka Road, Behind Tiles Factory, Kanakapura Town, Ramanagara District – 562 117.
9. The Claim Manager Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor, Abharana Arcade, M.G. Road, Tumakuru – 572 101.
10. Muneagowda D.L., Major S/o Lakshminarayana, R/at No.66, Dibbur, Kakolu Post, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru – 560 089.
. . . Respondents This MFA is filed U/S. 173(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, against the judgment and award dated 21.03.2019 passed in MVC No.4875/2016 on the file of VII Additional Small Causes Judge and XXXII ACMM, Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru, awarding compensation of Rs.22,20,400/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
This MFA coming on for Admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the judgment and award dated 21.03.2019, passed by the MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, wherein the claim petition came to be partly allowed by awarding the compensation of Rs.22,20,400/- together with 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
2. Insofar as the facts of the case are concerned, the accident is stated to have been occurred on 12.06.2016, at about 11.45 p.m., when one Shashikumar D.L. was traveling towards Hassan from Nelamangala side as an inmate in the car bearing registration No.KA-50-P-3267 along with other inmates. In the meanwhile, near Thalekere Hand Post, lorry bearing registration No.KA-18-8487 came from Kunigal side towards Magadi side in a rash and negligent manner and took right turn without any indicators and signals and dashed against the car. Due to the accident, Shashikumar D.L. sustained massive injuries and died on the spot. The claimants are stated to be the wife and the mother of the deceased, have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of five crores.
3. Respondents resisted the claim petition.
4. The learned Member considering the accident and negligence awarded compensation of Rs.22,20,400/- with costs against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed against respondent Nos.3 and 4. The same is challenged by 2nd respondent in this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company, Sri. O. Mahesh, would submit that the deceased himself is the author of the accident and as such, claimants are not entitle for compensation. Learned counsel would submit that even if, any other person was driving the car, the learned Member should have fastened the contributory negligence on the driver. Another submission of the learned counsel is that, eye witnesses to the accident and other inmates of the car were not examined. It is further submitted that the two vehicles involved in the accident are, Motor Car bearing registration No. KA-50-P-3267 and Lorry bearing registration No.KA-18-8487.
6. It is not the case that there is presumption that the driver of the bigger vehicle is invariably liable for the accident and negligence can be fastened on him.
7. It is necessary to observe that either registration of the case under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., or taking cognizance under Section 190 of Cr.P.C., are not challenged. A criminal case is stated to have been registered against the driver of the lorry in Crime No.186/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC. The documents available at this stage, are the details of the crime registered and it is also stated to have been charge sheeted and final report has been filed against the driver of the lorry, who is the accused.
8. It is a mere submission that appears to have been made only for the sake of objection and without there being any substance in it and the same cannot be accepted.
9. In terms of the quantum of compensation, the learned Member has rightly considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- and added 40% of the same towards future prospects, deducted 1/3rd and applied 16 multiplier for calculating “loss of dependency” considering that the deceased was running a business and awarded total compensation of Rs.22,20,400/- along with 8% interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit, on the following heads:
Amount (in Rs) 1. Loss of dependency 21,50,400-00 2. Loss of estate 15,000-00 3. Loss of consortium 40,000-00 4. Funeral and obsequies Expenses 15,000-00 Total 22,20,400-00 10. The interest ordered on the compensation amount is 8% p.a. The same is just and proper and it does not call for interference.
11. Insofar as fastening liability on the Insurer of the lorry is concerned, the Tribunal has justified in fastening the liability on it after assigning cogent reasons in its judgment and it does not call for interference.
12. Hence, I do not find the Insurance Company has a case to proceed further. The appeal is liable to be rejected at this stage itself. Accordingly, it is rejected.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM