IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
M.F.A.NO.1898 OF 2017
C/W
M.F.A. NO. 1058 OF 2017(MV D)
IN M.F.A.NO.1898/2017 BETWEEN NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., TUMKUR SHOPPING COMPLEX B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR REPRESENTING NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
(BY SRI. R.JAIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI.SIDDALINGAPPA S/O LATE REVANNA 65 YEARS, B.M.ROAD, KRS AGRAHARA KUNIGAL TOWN.
2. SMT. ALUVELAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJA 49 YEARS.
3. RADHAMMA 25 YEARS.
…APPELLANT 4. JYOTHI 21 YEARS.
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS WIFE AND 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENT ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE NAGARAJA. ALL ARE RESIDING AT NALLADIGALA BANDE KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PATEL.D.KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 –R-4 R-1 SERVED) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 22.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 11/13 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADHUGIRI, (SITTING AT PAVAGADA), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 4,49,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION AND ETC.
IN M.F.A.NO.1058/2017 BETWEEN 1. ALUVELAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJA NAIK 49 YEARS.
2. RADHAMMA D/O LATE NAGARAJA NAIK 24 YEARS.
3. JYOTHI D/O LATE NAGARAJA NAIK.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NALLADIGALA BANDE KASABA HOBLI PAVAGADA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. PATEL.D.KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI.SIDDALINGAPPA S/O LATE REVANNA 65 YEARS, B.M.ROAD, KRS AGRAHARA KUNIGAL TOWN – 572 102.
…APPELLANTS 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., TUMAKURU SHOPPING COMPLEX B.H.ROAD, TUMAKURU – 572 101.
(BY SRI. R.JAIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE, R-1 SERVED) …RESPONDENTS THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 22.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 11/13 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADHUGIRI, SITTING AT ITINARY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, AT PAVAGADA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard. Admit.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. Both these appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment and award dated 22.10.2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Pavagada (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.C.No.11/2013, wherein a sum of Rs.4,49,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization was awarded in favour of the claimants.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, M.F.A.No.1898/2017 has been preferred by the Insurance company while M.F.A.No.1058/2017 has been preferred by the claimants.
5. Both the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
6. Both counsels submit that there is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of the accident and as such, the said aspect does not require reconsideration by this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and consequently, the Insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal dealt with this contention at paragraphs 13 to 15 of the impugned judgment and came to the conclusion that having regard to the material on record, this contention urged on behalf of the Insurance company was untenable and devoid of merit and that the same was liable to be rejected. The Tribunal placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2000 KAR 2829 to arrive at this conclusion.
8. A perusal of the impugned judgment and award and the materials on record would clearly indicate that the Tribunal was fully justified in fastening the liability upon the Insurance company, particularly having regard to the well settled principles of law held by the Apex Court in the case of Pappu & Others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another (AIR 2018 SC 592). Applying the principles of ‘pay and recovery’ as held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision referred to above, the appeal filed by the Insurance company in M.FA No.1898/2017 is liable to be dismissed, reserving liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.
9. Insofar as M.F.A.No. 1058/2017 filed by the claimants for enhancement is concerned, having regard to the fact that the deceased was a minor, aged about 17 years as on the date of the accident, the Tribunal took his notional income as Rs. 18,000/- p.a. This finding is contrary to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and Another vs. Lala & Others (2014) 1 SCC 244, wherein, it was held that the notional income in respect of a minor should be taken as Rs.30,000/- p.a.
10. Applying the said judgment to the facts of the instant case, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.30,000 x 18 = Rs.5,40,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,24,000/- under this head. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.2,16,000/- towards ‘loss of dependency’. The compensation awarded under the other heads is just and proper and do not warrant interference by this Court.
11. Hence, I pass the following order:-
(i) M.F.A.No.1898/2017 filed by the Insurance company is hereby dismissed.
(ii) M.F.A.No.1058/2017 filed by the claimants is partly allowed.
(iii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding an additional sum of Rs.2,16,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization.
(iv) The apportionment and disbursement to be done in accordance with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE
Srl.