IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.196 OF 2012(MV-GEN) BETWEEN:
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD KOLLEGAL, NOW REP BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE 5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY … APPELLANT (BY SHRI.A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MOLE MADAIAH S/O LATE BETTAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT KANDAHALLI VILLAGE YELANDUR TALUK 2. SANNAMMA W/O LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT KANDAHALLI VILLAGE YELANDUR TALUK 3. RAJAMMA D/O LATE NANJAIAH W/O GURUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT KEMPANAPURA CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK 4. SHIVAMMA D/O LATE NANJAIAH W/O SHANKARA AGED AOBUT 23 YEARS R/AT MUDGUNDA KILLEGAL TOWN 5. RAJESH S/O LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT KANDAHALLI VILLAGE YELANDUR TALUK 6. SHIVAKUMAR S/O CHIKKAMMA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT SRINIVASANAGAR BANGALORE-560 072 7. H.N. KALAVATHI W/O L. SHANKAR R/AT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 072 …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. N. NANJUNDA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SHRI. N. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
V/O DATED 30.10.2014, NOTICE TO R6-D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.09.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.42/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, KOLLEGAL, SITTING AT CHAMARAJANAGAR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.6,42,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT This appeal is presented by the Insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 12.09.2011 in MVC No.42/2010 passed by the Fast Track Court and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollegal, sitting at Chamarajnagar.
2. Heard Shri A.M.Venkatesh, learned advocate for the appellant, Shri N.Nanjunda Swamy, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Shri N.Srinivas, learned advocate for respondent No.7.
3. Shri A.M.Venkatesh submits that driver of offending vehicle insured by the appellant did not have transport endorsement in the licence. Therefore, the Insurer could not have been held liable to indemnify the owner.
4. Assailing the quantum of compensation, learned advocate submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excess compensation. Son of the deceased was major as on the date of accident and daughters were married and therefore, they were not dependent on the deceased. Therefore, only 50% of the income should have been considered while computing loss of dependency.
5. Learned advocate for the claimants argued in support of the impugned judgment and award. He placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1 and contended that transport endorsement is not required to drive a light motor vehicle. So far as the compensation is concerned, he submitted that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. However, the Tribunal has 1 AIR 2017 SC 3668 considered Rs.4,500/- p.m. as his earning capacity. Therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate.
6. The first contention of Shri A.M.Venkatesh with regard to liability of the Insurer on the ground that driving licence did not contain transport endorsement must fail in view the decision in Mukund Dewangan. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, indisputably, accident has occurred in the year 2009. This Court has considered income of an able bodied person in the year 2009 as Rs.5,000/- p.m. However, Tribunal has taken income at Rs.4,500/- per month.
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and keeping in view the fact that this Court has considered Rs.5,000/- as earning capacity for the year 2009 and no amount towards future prospects is granted, in my view, quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and appropriate. Hence, the appeal must fail and it is accordingly dismissed.
Registry shall transmit the amount in deposit to the Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with law.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Yn.