IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY MFA NO. 5161/2015 (MV) C/W.
MFA NO. 2125/2015 (MV) MFA NO. 5161/2015 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KOMALA W/O. LATE SADASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, 2. BABY SUPRIYA, D/O. LATE SADASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 1 YEAR 8 MONTHS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1-SMT. KOMALA 3. SMT. PARVATHAMMA, W/O. SRI SHIVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 4. SRI SHIVARAJU S/O. LATE SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE, MIDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-577 201 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI M.V. MAHESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND 1 SRI NAGARAJU C., S/O. DAYANANDA M.R., AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.6, VINAYAKA NAGARA 1ST MAIN, BAGALAGUNTE, NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560 073 2. THE MANAGER, M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.186/7, RAGHAVEDNRA COMPLEX, 1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU-560 027 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DIEPSNED WITH V/O. DTD.14.08.2015) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.92/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT-XIII, MADHUGIRI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
MFA NO. 2125/2015 BETWEEN:
THE CLAIM MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.186/7, RAGHAVEDNRA COMPLEX, 1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI-600 002 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. KAMALA W/O. LATE SADASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 2. BABY SUPRIYA, D/O. LATE SADASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 3. SMT. PARVATHAMMA, W/O. SRI SHIVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 4. SRI SHIVARAJU S/O. LATE SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE, MIDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101 5. SRI NAGARAJU C., MAJOR S/O. DAYANANDA M.R., AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.6, VINAYAKA NAGARA 1ST MAIN, BAGALAGUNTE, NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560 073 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.V. MAHESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 & R4;
R2 MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1;
SRI K.C. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.92/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT-XIII MADHUGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,46,600/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T One Sri K. Ramakrishna, who is said to be the relative of the deceased, made a complaint stating that the deceased succumbed on 22.02.2013 due to the accidental injuries sustained when he was traveling in a TATA ACE (Light Goods Vehicle) bearing Reg. No.KA-52/7433 with another person, by name, Somashekar. A case was registered in Crime No.54/2013 by Koratagere police for the offences punishable U/Ss. 279 and 337 of I.P.C. against the driver of the alleged vehicle.
2. Wife, minor daughter and parents of the deceased filed a claim petition in MVC No.92/2013 before the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT XIII at Madhugiri (for short ‘the Tribunal’), claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal by its order dated 31.12.2014 has awarded compensation of Rs.10,46,600/- with interest at 6% P.A. from the date of petition, till realisation of the same, directing the Insurer to deposit the said amount with interest.
3. Being aggrieved by the same the Insurance Company filed an appeal in MFA No.2125/2015 seeking to set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and the claimants filed an appeal in MFA No.5161/2015 praying to enhance the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.
4. The grounds urged by the Insurance Company is that, there is variation in pleadings and in the evidence let in by the claimants as to in what capacity deceased and another were traveling in the alleged vehicle at the time of accident, it is contended that the deceased was falsely implicated in the case for the purpose of illegal gain and referred Ex.P3-Complaint, wherein, it was stated that the deceased was an agriculturist, which is contrary to the claim made by the claimants.
5. It is further contended that the driver of the alleged vehicle had also been made party to the proceedings, who admits the accident and in the complaint it was stated that the driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a tree resulting in grievous injuries and subsequently he died. It is also contended that the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased was working as a Coolie in the alleged vehicle. In Para No.2 of the evidence of PW1, it was deposed that after loading Tamarind in the vehicle, he was traveling in the said vehicle and it was further deposed that he was working under various persons, but it was not stated that to whom he was working at the time of accident. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation. He prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, since the claimants have attempted to make a false claim.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that in Ex.P3-Complaint it has been specifically stated that in the alleged vehicle the deceased was traveling as a Coolie along with PW2 who supports the case of the claimants. RW1-Driver Nagaraj D., also supports the case of the claimants. Documents are placed before the Court to prove that the deceased was traveling as a Coolie in the alleged goods vehicle. Hence he submits the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation.
7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties and gone through the complaint made by the one Ramakrishna who deposed that the deceased was traveling along with one Somashekar as a co-traveler in the alleged goods vehicle and has stated the nature of the goods loaded in the vehicle. In this background a case has been registered in Crime No.54/2013 against the owner of the alleged vehicle who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident has been examined as RW1 has admitted that the accident has occurred resulting in the death of the deceased. I.M.V. report marked as Ex.P7, Spot Sketch marked as Ex.P8, Inquest Report marked as Ex.P9 and Ex.P10-Card issued by NIMHANS support the case of the claimants. The Tribunal after thoroughly examining all these documents has awarded the compensation directing the Insurance Company to indemnify the award amount.
8. I have also gone through the evidence of witnesses, exhibits produced and marked by both the parties, more particularly the I.M.V. Report, Inquest Report and the Charge Sheet which prove that the deceased was traveling as a Coolie in the vehicle at the time of accident and succumbed due to the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident for which claimants are entitled for the compensation. Therefore, I hold that the Tribunal has not committed any error, much less any illegality. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is sound and proper and no grounds are made out by the Insurance Company to interfere with the same. Hence, appeal filed by the Insurance-Company is hereby dismissed.
9. The appeal for enhancement of compensation made by the claimants stating that the income of the deceased was not assessed properly by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded is on the lower side cannot be sustained, since, the Tribunal after thorough examination of the entire material available on record has awarded the just and proper compensation. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants is also dismissed. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed.
The amount in deposit made by the Insurer shall be transferred to the Tribunal, forthwith.
SBS* Sd/- JUDGE