IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.8555/2019(MV) BETWEEN:
M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, No.28, CENTENARY BUILDING, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . SMT. SUMALATHA W/O LATE KANTHAPPA JN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
2 . RAVI KEERTHI S/O LATE KANTHAPPA JN, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.
3 . MOUNIKA D/O LATE KANTHAPPA JN, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS.
4 . RAMYA D/O LATE KANTHAPPA JN AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS 6TH STANDARD STUDYING IN AMBEDKAR SCHOOL MANIVALA.
RESPONDENT’S No.3 AND 4 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. SUMALATHA ALL ARE AT NAGARAAGERE HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, AND DISTRICT.PIN-561 228.
5 . P G NARESHA S/O GANGADHARAPPA AGED MAJOR, R/A. PUTTAPURLAHALLI VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 210.
…RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 02.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC No.3628/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIV A.C.M.M., MEMBER, M.A.C.T., MAOHALL COMPENSATION OF Rs.14,88,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though the matter is listed for Admission, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case, the same is taken up for final disposal.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 2.08.2019 passed in MVC No.3628/2018 by the VI Additional Small Causes Judge and XXIV ACMM and Member, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-20), Mayohall Unit, wherein the claim petition filed by the claimants came to be allowed in part and the compensation of Rs.14,88,000/- is awarded with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation and directing the insurance company to deposit the same.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties herein are referred to with their rankings as held by them before the Tribunal.
3. The details of the road traffic accident are as under:
On 24.03.2018 at about 6.30 p.m. in between Meyajagareddyhalli, Gouribidanur Taluk Chikaballapura, deceased – Kanthappa was proceeding as a pillion rider on motor cycle bearing No. KA.40.K.9177 and one Manjunatha of M. Gollahalli was rider of the motor cycle and at that time, the rider of another Honda Unicorn bearing No.KA.04.V.3691 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle in which deceased was proceeding. Due to which, deceased sustained grievous head injury and it was a case of hit and run and there was darkness he could not note the registration number. Immediately, deceased was shifted to hospital where he died on the way.
4. The rest is, claimants contended that they spent Rs.50,000/- for funeral expenses and deceased was aged 45 years and was working as cook in Social Welfare department and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. They claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.
5. Respondent No.1 remained exparte and respondent No.2 contested the matter.
6. The learned member adjudicated the matter on the basis of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and RWs1 to 3 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P16 and Ex.R1 and R7 and Ex.C1 and C2 and allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has presented this appeal.
7. The learned member found that there were no cogent evidence regarding the income of deceased at Rs.10,000/- and he has assessed at Rs.9,000/-. Insofar as calculation of compensation is concerned, future prospects of 25% is awarded, 1/4th is deducted for personal and living expenses of the deceased and awarded 14,17,416/- towards loss of dependency and also awarded Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads, in all Rs.14,87,416/0 and it is just and proper and it does not call for interference.
8. Sri D. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company has contended mainly regarding quantum. He would submit that there was planting of a vehicle which has insurance policy only to knock off the compensation and it was a known fact that on the date of accident, no identification of the number or noting was made.
9. In the total context and circumstances of the case, the Investigating officer who investigated the crime has reported to have filed final report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. against the offending vehicle, motor cycle and the same is unchallenged quite up to this moment. Insofar as contending regarding planting of vehicle is not supported by relevant material or circumstances and it is liable to be rejected. The Insurance Company has raised the objection without there being substance in it. Under the circumstances, I find that the judgment and award is neither infirm nor incorrect and it deserves to be confirmed. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.
tsn* Sd/- JUDGE