IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.6431/2014 [MV] BETWEEN:
LEGAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE RGIC, NO.28, EAST WING 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING M G ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
(BY SRI.PRADEEP B, ADV.) AND:
1. JYOTHI W/O LATE SRIKANTAPRASANNA NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 2. G.S. SUPRIYA D/O LATE SRIKANTAPRASANNA NOW AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS 3. G.S. SUSHMITHA, D/O LATE SRIKANTAPRASANNA NOW AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE SINCE MINOR, REP. BY NEXT FRIEND MOTHER JYOTHI ...APPELLANT ALL R/O GANGAVADI VILLAGE HONAKERE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DIST.-577401.
4. KALANAYAKA, S/O MARIDEVANAYAKA HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DIST.-577401.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M Y SREENIVASAN, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3 NOTICE TO R4 IS D/W) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.03.2014 PASSED IN MVC.NO.7/2009 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, NAGAMANGALA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.50,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION.
THIS M.F.A COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The insurer is in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.03.2014 passed in MVC No.7/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Nagamangala.
2. Claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), claiming compensation for the death of one Srikantaprasanna, the husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant Nos.2 and 3. It is stated that on 17.09.2008 when the deceased was proceeding in his Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-09-TR-E-936/2008-09, suddenly applied the brake and lost control of the vehicle and fell down in the channel passing by the side of the road and sustained grievious injuries. Immediately he was taken to government hospital Mandya from where he was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore, subsequently he succumbed to the injuries on 18.09.2009 and it is stated that the deceased was aged 45 years. He was working as Security Guard, earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
3. On service of notice respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal. Only 2nd respondent – Insurer filed its objections. In its statement the insurer denied the claim petition averments. The accident in question occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and as such the claimants would not be entitled for compensation under Section 163A of the Act. Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and marked the documents Exs.P1 to P9. No evidence was led by respondents – owner or insurer of the vehicle. The Tribunal on appreciating the material on record was of the view that the claimants would not be entitled for compensation as sought for by them under Section 163A of the Act in view of the fact that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself while riding the motor bike, but awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.50,000/- under ‘No fault liability’ as per Section 140 of the Act. The insurer being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court in this Appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents 1 to 3. Perused the entire material on record.
5. The claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Act claiming compensation for the accidental death of one Srikantaprasanna - the husband of claimant No.1 Jyothi in a road traffic accident while proceeding on his Motor Cylce bearing registration No.KA-09-TR-E- 936/2008-09. The Tribunal based on the evidence on record has given a definite finding on issue No.1 that the deceased was riding motor cycle in question in a rash, negligent manner with high speed and applied sudden brake and lost control, due to which he fell down in the channel passing by the side of the road and sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the said injuries on 18.09.2008. As the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased, the Tribunal rightly held that the claimants would not be entitled for compensation under Section 163A of the Act, but awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- on ‘No fault liability’ as per Section 140 of the Act. The 2nd respondent – insurer has not led evidence so as to prove its contention that the owner of the vehicle has not violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view, that the Insurer has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award granting compensation in a sum Rs.50,000/- to the claimants for the death of one Srikantaprasanna - husband of the 1st claimant Jyothi. The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation and the death of husband of the claimant is not in dispute. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms