Partly allowed

Vinod S/O Keshav Reddy, v. Smt. Santhosh Kumari W/O Late Krishna Dev

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2012MFA/20549/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant, vehicle owner, challenged liability and compensation quantum. Court rejected father's claim as dependent, upheld owner's liability, and reduced compensation due to excessive income and dependency awards.

What did the court decide?

Compensation amount reduced to Rs.5,04,000/- belonging to the Tribunal. Excess amount is to be refunded to the owner.

Vinod S/O Keshav Reddy, Vs Smt. Santhosh Kumari W/O Late Krishna… — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARAWAD

¶2

IN KARNATAKA

¶3

Dated the 3r1 day of July 2012

¶4

:BEFORE:

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 20549 / 2011 (MV) HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE : V.JAGANNATHAN

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

CAR STREET, BELLARY VINOD Sb KESHAV REDDY, OPP CSI CHURCH, TANK BUND ROAD, AGE: 18 YEARS, ANJANA FASHIONS,

¶8

.Appellant

¶9

(By Sri B.Sharanabasawa & A.B.Patil, Advocates.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

W/O LATE KISHAN DEV.

¶12

I. SMT. SANTHOSH KUMARI

¶13

AGE: 53 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSEWIFE.

¶14

DR. VISHAL

¶15

Sb LATE KISHAN DEV, AGE: 27 YEARS.

¶16

BOTH ARE RIO SHAKTHI NIVASA.

¶17

H.NO. 128/B. WARDNO. 18,

¶18

BELLARY B.S. COMPOUND. KAPPAGAL ROAD.

¶19

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, HUBLI

¶20

Sb VENKATARAMANAPPA SRI. KESHAVA REDDY

¶21

HERO HONDA ACTIVA BEARING REG AGE: 48 YEARS, 0CC: OWNER OF THE

¶22

NO. KA-34/U-1832,

¶23

C/O ANJANA FASIONS. OPP. CSI CHURCH. TANK BUND ROAD. CAR STREET. BELLARY

¶24

Respondents

¶25

(By^{SriY.LakshmikantReddy,AdvocateforC/R-1&2.} Sri Ravindra R.Mane, Advocate for R-3.

¶26

Sri Harish S. .Maigur, Advocate for R-4.)

¶27

MFA FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF MY. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03.09.2010. PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.257/2009. ON THE FILE OF THE lvi OTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IX, BELLARY. AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,75,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.

¶28

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal is by the owner of the vehicle calling in question the liability put on him by the Tribunal and the quantum of compensation is also called in question.

¶31

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, the driver of the vehicle in question was not the appellant but his father, who was R-2 before the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal could not have

¶32

put the liability on the owner of the vehicle, because his dependent of the deceased and, therefore, only the wife, father had licence. and compensation on the higher side under the head of loss doctor also major, could not have been the Secondly it is submitted that the who is the first claimant before the Tribunal, is eligible for the loss of dependency amount. of dependency because, the second claimant, being a

¶33

that the deceased, though said to be a businessman running a hotel, no document was produced and no produced in proof of running the hotel business or in higher side. proof of having a particular sum as income. licence was produced nor any income tax returns is Therefore, Rs. 5,OOO/- taken as income by the Tribunal on the 3. As far as the income is concerned, it is submitted

¶34

respondents claimants, hand, submitted that Tribunal has considered the background of the family of learned the the other the deceased and the deceased was having a house and counsel the The on 4. for

¶35

¶36

also a dentist. Therefore, sufficient income was there of the deceased was a doctor and the second claimant is bank pass book was produced and further, the daughter and, as such, the income taken by the Tribunal does not require any reduction.

¶37

him and the Tribunal was justified in absolving the Having thus heard both liability is concerned, no evidence is placed by the father from any liability. Obviously, it is on the owner to of the appellant to show that the vehicle was driven by 5. Insurance Company, which is R-3 before this court, shoulder the liability. sides, insofar as the

¶38

any income tax returns filed to show the income derived proof of licence hotel, is in by the deceased. Although the background of the family of the deceased has been mentioned in the order of the 6. for running the As far as quantum of the documents showing proof of income and the running hotel business, no licence was produced nor Tribunal while discussing issue-3, still, in the absence the income taken at concerned,

¶39

= 3,36,000/-. substituted Rs.15,000/- is on the higher side and it is reasonable to take at Rs.8,000/Tribunal. per Consequently, the amount of dependency will work out the month. place the This amount is income The excess amount under this head is given to Rs. 4000 x 12 x 7 in of Rs.8,40,000/by

¶40

Rs. 5,04,000/ - which is inadmissible.

¶41

Rs.3,71,000/reduced claimants other words, compensation with interest as given by the Tribunal. and entitled as award amount. the allowed in part and the compensation amount gets The liability is on the owner of the vehicle to satisfy the in be In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is by Rs.5,04,000/will to 7.

¶42

amount transferred Tribunal. deposit the Excess amount, if any, deposited be refunded The in be to

¶43

to the owner.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

ckc/

Vinod S/O Keshav Reddy, v. Smt. Santhosh Kumari W/O Late Krishna Dev

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod S/O Keshav Reddy, v. Smt. Santhosh Kumari W/O Late Krishna Dev

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal S/O Bapu Dhumale @ Bagadi Vs N Shivayogi

The Managing Director Vs Basanagouda Shivanagouda Manikatti

Shivaling S/O Basappa Savalagi Vs Bhimappa Siddappa Kamari

The Committee of Management of the Jeevasamadhi of Vs the Commr Hindu Religious and Charitable

Divisional Manager Vs Ananda Ningappa Chavan

Taufeeq Gaibusab Pathan Vs the Divisional Controller