Partly allowed

Judy Peter Roadrigues v. Mithun Ganapat Birje

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2019MFA/103181/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Private-car accident claims concerned insurer liability and compensation for death and injuries. The Court rejected the hire-or-reward defence and directed the insurer to pay. It reduced the death compensation, enhanced both injury awards, reduced interest to 6%, and partly allowed all three appeals.

What did the court decide?

Insurer directed to pay reassessed compensation with 6% annual interest from petition until realization; both injury awards enhanced; apportionment undisturbed.

Judy Peter Roadrigues Vs Mithun Ganapat Birje — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF AUGUST 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103181 of 2015 c/w MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NOS.103194 OF 2015 AND 103182 OF 2015 (MV)

¶7

IN MFA NO.103181 OF 2015: BETWEEN:

¶8

JUDY PETER RODRIGUES AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: H.NO.1811, ZED GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI

¶9

IVAN PETER RODRIGUES AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: H.NO.1811, ZED GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI

¶10

RUTH PETER RODRIGUES AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: H.NO.1811, ZED GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI

¶11

GRACY W/O PETER RODRIGUES AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: H.NO.1811, ZED GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI

¶12

... APPELLANTS

¶13

(By Sri. B.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

AND:

¶16

MITHUN GANAPAT BIRJE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.978, GADE MARG, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI, (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-22-P-6013)

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI, (INSUER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-22P-6013 POLICY NO.253310311161 20070831 VALID FROM 19-01-2012 TO 18-01-2013)

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By Sri. GIRIJA HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1. Smt. PREETI SHASHNAK, ADV. FOR R2)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:11.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.390/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

IN MFA NO.103194 OF 2015 BETWEEN:

¶22

MRS. JUDY PETER RODRIGUES AGE:55 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD R/O:NO.1811, ZED GALLI SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI. ... APPELLANT (By Sri. B.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶23

¶24

AND:

¶25

SHRI.MITHUN GANAPAT BIRJE AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS R/O:H.NO:978, GADE MARD, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-22-P-6013)

¶26

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI (INSURER OF VECHILE BEARING NO.KA-22-P-6013) POLICY NO.25331031116120070831 VALID FROM 19.01.2012 TO 78.01.2013

¶27

... RESPONDENTS

¶28

(By Sri. GIRIJA HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1. Smt. PREETI SHASHNAK, ADV. FOR R2)

¶29

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:11.08.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.623/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶30

IN MFA NO.103182 OF 2015 BETWEEN:

¶31

GRACY ALISTER NORONHA AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: TUITION, NOW NIL, R/O: NO.1811, ZED GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI.

¶32

... APPELLANT

¶33

(By Sri. B.M. PATIL, ADV.)

¶34

¶35

AND:

¶36

MITHUN GANAPAT BIRJE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.978, GADE MARG, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI, (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-22-P-6013)

¶37

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT RAMADEV GALLI, BELAGAVI, (INSUER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-22P-6013 POLICY NO.253310311161 20070831 VALID FROM 19-01-2012 TO 18-01-2013)

¶38

... RESPONDENTS

¶39

(By SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1. Smt. PREETI SHASHNAK, ADV. FOR R2)

¶40

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED: 11.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.622/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶41

THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos.103181 of

¶45

2015, 103182 of 2015 and 103194 of 2015 are

¶46

filed by the claimants assailing the common judgment and award dated 11.08.2015 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’, for short) in MVC Nos.390 of 2013, 622 of 2013 and 623 of 2013.

¶47

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and respondentinsurer in all these cases.

¶48

The rank of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience.

¶49

The claimant in MVC No.319 of 2013 being

¶50

the legal representative of Rodrigues and the claimants in MVC Nos.622 of 2013 and 623 of 2013, who are injured claimants, have filed claim

¶51

¶52

petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for short) claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, 18,00,000/- and 13,00,000/- respectively interalia contending that on 10.01.2013 AT 23:30 hours, Peter Rodrigues, and his wife were returning from Goa to Belgaum in a car bearing registration No.KA-22/P-6013, the respondent No.1 being the owner and driver of the car driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, when the said car came near Kalmani cross on Jamboti-Kanakumbi road, at that time, the driver of the said car suddenly lost control over his vehicle and dashed to the road side tree and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the said Peter Rodrigues sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot, whereas the other two claimants i.e. wife and daughter of the said deceased Peter Rodrigues were sustained injuries

¶53

¶54

and they have taken to the hospital and treated as in-patient. Due to the injuries, they have suffered disability and they have also spent huge amount towards medical expenses. Hence, prayed for granting compensation on various heads.

¶55

In pursuance to the notice in all the cases, the respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed statement of objections by denying the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and also nature of injuries and contended that respondent No.1 he is having valid driving license to drive the vehicle and vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2, if any liability, the same shall be fastened on the respondent No.2 and also contended that the vehicle was not used for carrying any passenger for hire and reward and the deceased and respondent No.1 are friends and hence, prayed for dismissing the claim petitions.

¶56

¶57

The respondent No.2 insurer also appeared

¶58

and filed statement of objections in all the three cases by denying the averments made in the petitions as false and contended that the vehicle was a private vehicle which was used for carrying the passengers for hire and reward and they are un-authorized passengers in the car. They admitted the issuance of insurance policy but it has contended that in view of the violation of terms and conditions of the policy in respect of using the vehicle for hire and reward and not having driving license therefore respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, prayed for dismissing the claim petitions.

¶59

Based upon the rival pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues and Addl. Issues in all the three cases;

¶60

¶61

MVC No.390/2013

¶62

(1) Whether the petitioner proves that on 10.1.2013 at about 11.30 p.m, near Kalmani cross on JambotiKanakumbi road, while they were returning from Goa to Belgaum in the car bearing No.KA-22/P-6013, the driver of the said car drove the same in a very high speed and rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and lost control over the same and dashed to the road side tree and caused the accident in which the deceased Peter Anthony Rodrigues died on the spot as alleged in the petition?

¶63

(2) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the driver of the Car bearing No.KA-22/P-6013 was not holding valid and effective DL to drive the same as on the date of alleged accident and hence the 1^st respondent/owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy?

¶64

(3) Whether the respondent No.2 further proves that the decease was an unauthorized passenger in the said vehicle and hence his risk is not covered under the policy issued to the said Car?

¶65

(4) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, from whom and for how much compensation they are entitled to?

¶66

¶67

(5) What order or award?

¶68

Addl. Issue

¶69

Whether the respondent No.1 proves that at the time of accident the vehicle was duly insured with the respondent No.2 and if at all this court comes to the conclusion that petitioner is entitled for compensation then the same may be saddled on respondent No.2?

¶70

MVC No.622/2013

¶71

(1) Whether the petitioner proves that on 10.1.2013 at about 11.30 p.m, near Kalmani cross on JambotiKanakumbi road, while she was returning from Goa to Belgaum in the car bearing No.KA-22/P-6013, the driver of the said car drove the same in a very high speed and rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and lost control over the same and dashed to the road side tree and caused the accident in which she sustained the grievous injuries as alleged in the petition?

¶72

(2) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the driver of the Car bearing No.KA-22/P-6013 was not holding valid and effective DL to drive the same as on the date of alleged accident and hence the 1^st

¶73

¶74

respondent/owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy?

¶75

(3) Whether the respondent No.2 further proves that the decease was an unauthorised passenger in the said vehicle and hence her risk is not covered under the policy issued to the said Car?

¶76

(4) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, from whom and for how much compensation she is entitled to?

¶77

(5) What order or award?

Addl. Issue

MVC No.623/2013

(1) Whether the petitioner proves that on 10.1.2013 at about 11.30 p.m, near Kalmani cross on JambotiKanakumbi road, while she was returning from Goa to Belgaum in the car bearing No.KA-22/P-6013,

¶82

¶83

the driver of the said car drove the same in a very high speed and rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and lost control over the same and dashed to the road side tree and caused the accident in which she sustained the grievous injuries as alleged in the petition?

¶84

(2) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the driver of the Car bearing No.KA-22/P-6013 was not holding valid and effective DL to drive the same as on the date of alleged accident and hence the 1^st respondent/owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy?

¶85

(3) Whether the respondent No.2 further proves that the decease was an unauthorised passenger in the said vehicle and hence her risk is not covered under the policy issued to the said Car?

¶86

(4) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, from whom and for how much compensation she is entitled to?

¶87

(5) What order or award?

¶88

Addl. Issue

¶89

Whether the respondent No.1 proves that at the time of accident the vehicle was duly insured with

¶90

¶91

the respondent No.2 and if at all this court comes to the conclusion that petitioner is entitled for compensation then the same may be saddled on respondent No.2?

¶92

8 . To substantiate their contention, the claimant-Gracy Alister Noranhas in MVC

¶93

No.622/2013 has been examined herself and on

¶94

behalf of petitioners in MVC No.390/2013 as PW.1 and claimant Ruth Pether Rodrigues examined herself as PW3 in MVC No.629/2013 and they also examined PWs.2 and 4 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P259. On behalf of respondent No.2

¶95

one Umesh Gundu Bhat, has been examined as RW.1 and another witness is examined as RW.2 and got marked three documents as Exs.R1 to R3.

¶96

On behalf of respondent No.1, respondent got himself examined as RW.3. After considering the evidence on record, the tribunal answered issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 in the affirmative and issue No.2 partly affirmative and allowed the petitions and

¶97

¶98

additional issues deleted and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.5,61,000/-, 3,54,000/and Rs.5,77,000/respectively. However, the liability has been fastened on respondent No.1 – owner of the vehicle by exonerating the insurer.

¶99

Assailing the judgment and award passed by the tribunal the claimants have preferred these appeals both on the ground of enhancement of compensation as well as fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle. However, the owner of the vehicle has not filed any appeal before this Court.

¶100

Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 were clearly goes to show that the deceased and PW.1 along with claimants in MVC No.623/2013 were traveled in the car belongs to respondent No.1 as

¶101

¶102

he was the friend of deceased from Goa to Belagavi

¶103

and they met with an accident. The respondent No.1 also filed statement of objections that the claimants and deceased were traveled in the vehicle not as paid passengers and respondent No.1 also examined before the Tribunal as RW.3 has clarified that he has taken the injured and deceased as friends but not as passenger for hire or reward. In spite of the same, the tribunal has wrongly concluded the findings that the deceased and injured claimants were traveled as passenger in the car for hire and reward and there is violation of conditions of the policy which is not correct. Though the Ex.R2, a claim form obtained by the investigator of the company of RW.2 but he has clarified before the tribunal that for getting the compensation for damages without knowing the contents, he has signed the documents and the said documents were not confronted.

¶104

¶105

Therefore, accepting the evidence of RWs.1 and 2, fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle is not correct. Therefore, prayed for setting aside the findings by fastening the liability on the owner and prayed for fastening the liability on the Insurance Company.

¶106

Further, he has taken the contention in respect of quantum of compensation, the deceased was doing internet café along with claimant in MVC No.623/2013 earning more than Rs.20,000/per month. However, the tribunal has considered only Rs.6,000/- per month, which is very meager. Even for the accident was occurred in the year 2013, the income of the unskilled labour is used to consider at Rs.7,000/per month. The claimant in MVC No.390/2013 also taking tuitions by earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Therefore, prayed for enhancing the income of the deceased as well as the claimants.

¶107

¶108

Further the learned counsel contended that

¶109

the tribunal has awarded a very meager amount towards pain and agony and loss of amenities. The claimants in MVC No.623/2013 Julie Peter Rodrigues was sustained head injury and suffered 60% - 65% of disability towards whole body. However, the tribunal has considered only 25% of disability which is very meager. Even in the case of the claimant in MVC No.622/2013 also to be considered at 40% of the disability wherein the tribunal has considered only 10% of the disability, which is meager. Hence, prayed for enhancement of the compensation in all the cases.

¶110

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the insurer strenuously argued that the insurer has been able to establish before the tribunal that the deceased and injured claimants were traveled in the car of respondent No.1 as paid passenger and

¶111

¶112

the same is admitted by the respondent No.1 in the self claim application. As per Ex.R2, even in the evidence before the tribunal, he has admitted that his signature and filling the form i.e. the claim form, such being the case, once he has admitted that he has received the amount of Rs.5,00/- per day as hire and reward towards fuel charge, which clearly demonstrates before the tribunal that they are paid passenger in the private car which is not permissible. Thereby there is violation of conditions of the policy. Therefore,

¶113

the tribunal after considering the evidence on record has rightly fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle and exonerating the insurance company. Therefore, the learned counsel supported the judgment and award passed by the tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeals.

¶114

¶115

Upon hearing the arguments of learned

¶116

counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the records the points that would arise for

¶117

consideration;

¶118

(1) Whether the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is not justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle and absolved the insurer holding that the deceased and injured are paid passengers in a private car?

¶119

(2) Whether the claimants in all the appeals are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

¶120

(3) What order?

¶121

The claimants, PWs.1 and 3 have established

¶122

the factum of accident that was occurred on 10.01.2013 at 23:30 hours, PW1 and her father deceased and claimant i.e. and Judy Peter Rodrigues in MVC Nos.623/2013 were traveling from Goa to Belgaum, when they reached near

¶123

¶124

Kalmani cross on Jamboti-Kanakumbi road, at that time due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, when lost the control, the vehicle was dashed to the road side tree and caused accident and due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries to his vital parts of the body and died on the spot. Whereas, PW.1, who is claimant in MVC No.622/2013 and Judy claimant in MVC No.623/2013, were sustained grievous injuries and taken to the hospital and treated as in-patient at KLE hospital, Belagavi. Ex.P1, is FIR, Ex.P2 complaint, Ex.P3, spot panchanama, Ex.P3(a) hand sketch, Ex.P4, Inquest panchanama, Ex.P5, MVI report, Ex.P6, P.M.report, Ex.P7, charge sheet, Ex.P8, Injury certificate, Ex.P9, Injury certificate, Ex.P22, wound certificate and other medical documents and medical bills up to Exs.P259 were goes to show that this accident was occurred due to rash

¶125

¶126

and negligent driving of respondent No.1, who is driver cum owner of the vehicle. The accident in question is not in dispute and death of deceased Peter Rodrigues due to the injuries sustained in the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimants were not in dispute.

¶127

The controversy in these appeals are in respect of fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle on the ground that the vehicle was used by respondent No.1 for hire and reward and deceased and the claimants have traveled as paid

¶128

passengers in a private car. In this regard, the respondent No.1 who is the owner of the vehicle has filed objections statement before the tribunal contending that the deceased was his friend and he is used the car for shifting them from Goa to Belagavi, but not as paid passenger for hire or reward.

¶129

¶130

On the other hand, the insurer has taken specific contention before the tribunal that the vehicle was used for hire or reward and carried the deceased injured claimants as passenger. In support of their case, the insurer examined RW.1 who is the official of the insurance company and they also examined one Nirmal Kumari as RW.2 private investigator appointed by them and got marked Ex.R1, insurance policy. Ex.R2 is the statement of respondent No.2 made before RW.2. The RW.2 given the evidence before the tribunal stating that he has recorded statement of the owner of the vehicle and obtained filled form by him and obtained the signature of respondent No.1 on the form he has identified as Ex.R2, as statement of the owner of the vehicle. RW.1 the official of the insurer stated that the vehicle was used by the owner for hire or reward by receiving Rs.500/- per day and also an advance of Rs.500/-

¶131

¶132

and the counsel placed reliance on the Ex.R2, the statement of the owner of the vehicle who also examined as RW.3 before the tribunal. Though the insurer examined RW.2, the private investigating officer is said to be recorded the statement of owner of the vehicle as Ex.P2 and he himself identified Ex.R2 before the tribunal and identified his signature in his evidence but counsel for the respondent insurer not confronted Ex.R2 the document to RW3 owner of the vehicle in the cross examination, which is required under

¶133

Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. Though it is stated he has filled the claim form before the insurer but the said claim form for claiming the own damage has not been produced before the tribunal to show what was written in the claim form. On the other hand, the statement said to be made by the owner of the vehicle was marked as Ex.R2, but the owner of the vehicle himself

¶134

¶135

appeared before the tribunal and he has denied the contention of the same before the tribunal and

¶136

he has stated that without knowing the contents of the document, he has signed the document at the request of the official from insurance company in order to get early compensation towards damages, he has signed the same. Even in the cross-examination though he has stated to be given statement but denied the fact that he has used the vehicle for hire or reward admittedly the contents of Ex.R2 has not been confronted to RW.3, who is maker of the statement and the owner of the vehicle in order to prove Ex.R2, which was executed by him with full knowledge.

¶137

Apart from that the very claim form said to be filled by the owner of the insurer has not been produced before the tribunal. For non-production of the claim form before the Court, an adverse inference can be drawn against the Insurer. The

¶138

¶139

evidence of RW.3 clearly corroborates with

¶140

evidence of PW.1, who is inmate of the car traveled along with her father and mother at the time of accident. Though the insurer RW.2, the private investigator of the insurance company deposed before the tribunal that he has examined injured claimant apart from the owner of the vehicle but the statement made by the injured claimant were not produced before the tribunal to show what was the statement made by them and the statement were not confronted to PW.1 to prove their specific contention taken by the insurance company. Apart from that insurance company not produced any documents to show that RW.2 has been authorized to make an enquiry or investigate and there is no appointment letter produced or marked before the Court through RW.2 to show that he was authorized investigator and he has conducted investigation as proper. In the absence of any

¶141

¶142

evidence of RW.2 cannot be acceptable. On the other hand, the evidence of PW.1 corroborates with the evidence of RW.3 to show that the vehicle has been used by PW1, his deceased son and his mother for traveling from Goa to Belagavi as inmates of the car but not as paid passengers and there is no reason for the Tribunal for accepting the contention of Insurer without proper reasons. The contention of the insurer that the vehicle was

¶143

used for hire and reward though there is terms and conditions of policy prohibiting the owner to use the vehicle for hire and reward. The fact remains that the vehicle was not used for hire or reward. Merely a sum of Rs.500/- has been paid for fuel that itself is not a ground to accept that the vehicle was used for hire or reward. Therefore, the contention taken by the insurer cannot be acceptable that the vehicle was used for hire or reward.

¶144

¶145

In this regard the learned counsel relied upon

¶146

un-reported judgment of division bench of this Court in MFA No.1894/2003, MFA Nos.6822/2005 and connected matters and MFA No.23723/2013, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of these cases. Though the counsel for the claimants relied upon another judgment of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in MFA No.22130/2013 and other connected cases in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Kalawathi, reported in ILR 2011 KAR 1191 , wherein this Court held gratuitous inmate when the vehicle is covered with comprehensive policy. If the vehicle is a private vehicle plyed on hire, the owner may be liable for the penal and fiscal consequences under the Motor Vehicles Act for payment of penalty and taxes applicable to the commercial vehicles. But from the stand-point of the insurer, it makes no difference whether the

¶147

¶148

inmate is a paid passenger or gratuitous passenger and fastened the liability on the insurer.

¶149

Even otherwise, this Court held that the deceased and the injured claimants are traveling the vehicle as inmates of the car but not as paid passengers even otherwise if they are considered as passenger the liability on the insurer cannot be absolved. Therefore, the tribunal has committed an error in holding that the vehicle was used for hire or reward and exonerated the insurance company from its liability. On the other hand, the liability must have been fastened on the insurance company on the ground the liability is jointly and severally on the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore

¶150

I answer point No.1 in favour of the claimants and

¶151

as against insurer.

¶152

¶153

As regards the compensation awarded in the case of MVC No.390/2013, the claim petition filed for the death of deceased Peter Rodrigues, the claimants have stated that the deceased was running an internet café and earning Rs.20,000/per month. But in support of their contention, the claimants have not produced any documents to show that the deceased was running the internet café. In the absence of any proof of income, there

¶154

is no other option for this Court but to consider the notional income. In the absence of any document, the Tribunal has considered Rs.6,000/per month as income. However, normally this Court used to consider Rs.7,000/- per month in the accident occurred during the year 2013 as notional income. In view of the age of the deceased more than 60 years and non-production of any documents, I propose to consider Rs.7,000/- as income. Learned counsel for the

¶155

¶156

respondent brought to the notice of the Court and

¶157

also argued, except the wife, other claimants cannot be considered as dependents of the deceased. The age of the wife i.e., the widow of the deceased is 53 years. Though she has also filed the claim petition for injury sustained by him in MVC No.623/2013 contending that she was also earning Rs.20,000/- per month, however, the 2^nd claimant is the son, who is said to be in abroad and 3^rd and 4^th claimants are daughters aged 30 years and 28 years and they are all married daughters. Therefore, all these three claimants cannot be considered as dependents on the deceased. Therefore, the 1^st claimant alone is considered as dependent of the deceased. In the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 3, it is clearly elicited by the insurer that, claimants No.3 and 4 are married and residing in their husband’s house and claimant No.2 is the major son. Such being

¶158

¶159

the case, they cannot be treated as dependents on the deceased. Therefore 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If Rs.7,000/- is considered as income and 50% is deducted, Rs.3,500 x 12 x 7 (appropriate multiplier) = Rs.2,94,000/- would be the compensation towards ‘loss of dependency’.

¶160

As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in (2018 SCC Online SC 1546), the 1^st claimant being the widow of the deceased is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of spousal consortium’. Claimants No.2 to 4 being the children of the deceased are entitled for Rs.30,000/each towards ‘loss of parental consortium’. Claimants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses and another Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

¶161

¶162

estate. In all the claimants are entitled for

¶163

reassessed compensation as under:

¶164

Loss of Consortium to the 1^st claimant	Rs.40,000.00
Loss of parental consortium (Rs.30,000x3)	Rs.90,000.00
Loss of Estate	Rs.15,000.00
Funeral and Transportation	Rs.15,000.00
expenses
Total	Rs.4,54,000.00

¶165

Though the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal and also the owner, but when this Court being the first Appellate Court reassessed the compensation, the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,54,000/- as against Rs.5,61,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶166

As regards the computation of compensation in MVC No.622/2013, the claimant is the daughter who accompanied the deceased Peter Rodrigues. She has stated that she is working as a teacher

¶167

¶168

conducting tuitions and she has lost the income and earning capacity. But no documents are produced before this Court to prove that she was conducting tuitions and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In the absence of any proof of income, I propose to consider Rs.7,000/- as notional income for the claimant. As per the wound certificate – Ex.P8, the claimant has sustained three injuries out of which all the injuries are shown as grievous in nature. The claimant also examined PW4 – Dr. S. R. Angadi, who has assessed the disability as per disability certificate - Ex.P13, wherein the doctor has assessed the disability of 15% for fracture of both the right and left nasal bone and 25% in respect of left upper limb. Totally the disability was shown as 40%. While considering the disability towards whole body, the Tribunal has taken 10% which is meager. At least the Tribunal could have considered 1/3^rd of the

¶169

¶170

disability in this case. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I propose to consider 15% disability towards whole body. If Rs.7,000/- is calculated as income, 15% of the it would be Rs.1,050/- multiplied by 12 x 17 (appropriate multiplier), it comes to Rs.2,14,200/. The Tribunal has awarded medical expenses of Rs.1,33,000/-. The same is retained. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards ‘pain and agony’. I am of the view that the said amount is sufficient and adequate. Hence the same is retained. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/towards loss of future amenities and also Rs.10,000/- towards loss of life expectancy, in total Rs.25,000/- and the same is retained. Three months salary towards loss of income during laid up period, in view of computation at the rate of Rs.7,000/per month comes to Rs.21,000/(Rs.7000x3), as against Rs.18,000/- awarded by

¶171

¶172

the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded

¶173

Rs.5,000/towards food, nourishment, conveyance etc., and the same is retained. In total, the claimant in MVC No.622/2010 is entitled for compensation as under:

¶174

Loss of earning capacity	Rs.2,14,200.00
Medical Expenses	Rs.1,33,000.00
Pain and suffering	Rs.50,000.00
Loss of amenities and life expectancy	Rs.25,000.00
Food and nourishment	Rs.5,000.00
Loss of Income during laid up period Total	Rs.21,000.00 Rs.4,48,200.00

¶175

As regards computation of award in MVC No. 623/2013 filed by the claimant/Judy Peter Rodrigues, she was running internet cafe and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but she has not produced any document before the Court. In the absence of documents, Rs.7,000/- was considered

¶176

¶177

by the Tribunal as a notional income of the claimant. It is contended that the claimant has suffered sever head injury, due to which, she is unable to speak or to do her work. To prove her case, the daughter, Mrs. Ruth Peter Rodregues examined as P.W.3 and got examined P.W.2/ Dr.Chandrashekhar T. R.

¶178

As per the evidence of P.W.2/doctor and documents Ex.P-22/wound certificate, it shows that she sustained head injury other than other injuries and undergone CT scan, MRI diagnosis etc. As per the summary sheet, Ex.P-23 given on the basis of Ex.P-25/Observation certificate, she sustained subacute infarct with hemorphagic transformation in right centrum semi ovale, carona radiate, lentiform nucleus, thalamus and perisylvian region and non specific white matter ischemic changes in bilateral peritrigenal and periventricular region. The injured was admitted

¶179

¶180

in hospital twice as an in-patient for almost more than 104 days. As per Ex.P-25, the Doctor has given disability certificate opining that the claimant is having permanent mental disability and he has assessed the disability to the extent of 60% to 65% for the whole body. Even in the crossexamination, the same thing has been reiterated by him and nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve his evidence. However, the Tribunal, while considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has considered only 25% disability to the whole body, which is not correct. When the claimant has sustained severe head injury and not able to speak and do her normal works and even when she is not able to give her evidence before the Court, reducing the disability to 25% by the Tribunal is not correct. By looking to the facts and circumstances, I propose to consider 50% disability to the whole body as against 25% taken

¶181

¶182

by the Tribunal. Further, Rs.7,000/- is considered

¶183

as monthly income and 50% of the said income would be Rs.3,500/-. The said income if multiplied by 12 months, it would be Rs.42,000/-. As regards the age of the claimant, she herself has stated her age as 55 in her petition and even in her another petition, MVC No.623/2013 filed seeking compensation for the death of her husband, she has stated her age as 53 years. Such being the case, the multiplier “11” would be proper multilier and not “13”, which is considered by the Tribunal. If Rs.42,000/- is multiplied by multiplier “11”, it comes to Rs.4,62,000/- and this would be the loss of earning capacity due to the disability sustained by her in the accident.

¶184

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/-

¶185

towards pain and agony. The same is retained. The Tribunal, based upon the medical bills produced as per Ex.P-27 to Ex.P-252, has awarded

¶186

¶187

Rs.2,14,000/- towards medical expenses and the same is retained. As per the evidence on record, the claimant was admitted in hospital almost for a period of 4 months and after her discharge also she might have taken bed rest. Hence, I propose to consider the loss of income during the laid off period for 6 months, which would be Rs.42,000/(Rs.7000/X 6 months = Rs.42,000/-). The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards food and nourishment etc. The same is retained. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses, but in my considered opinion the said amount is very meager, since the claimant has to suffer continuously throughout her life and she has to take further treatment. Therefore, I propose to award Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses as against Rs.15,000/-. As regards loss of amenities, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.25,000/and has awarded

¶188

¶189

Rs.15,000/- towards life expectancy. But looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant, she requires one attendant throughout her life and hence, I propose to award Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and life expectancy as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the claimant in MVC No.623/2013 is entitled for the re-assessed compensation of Rs.9,23,000/- as

¶190

under:-

¶191

Towards loss of earning	Rs. 4,62,000/-
capacity
Towards pain and agony	Rs. 40,000/-
Towards medical expenses	Rs. 2,14,000/-
Towards loss of income during	Rs. 42,000/-
the laid off period
Towards food and nourishment	Rs. 15,000/-
etc.,
Towards future medical	Rs. 50,000/-
expenses
Towards loss of amenities and life expectancy	Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total	Rs.9,23,000/-

¶192

¶193

As regards, the interest awarded in all the claim petitions at the rate of 9% per annum is on the higher side and therefore, it is reduced to 6% per annum.

¶194

Though the claim in M.F.A.No.103181/2015 is reduced, but the appellants/claimants in the said appeal have succeeded in respect of fastening the liability on the insurer.

¶195

Consequently, the appeal in

¶196

M.F.A.No.103181/ 2015 is allowed in part in respect of fastening the liability and reduction of award accordingly and the appeals in M.F.A.No.103182/ 2015 and M.F.A.No.103194/ 2015 are allowed in part.

¶197

The claimants in M.F.A.No.103181/2015 are

¶198

entitled Rs.4,54,000/-, claimant in M.F.A.No.103182/ 2015 are entitled to Rs.4,48,200/and the claimants in

¶199

¶200

M.F.A.No.103194/2015 are entitled to

¶201

Rs.9,23,000/- of re-assessed compensation as discussed above.

¶202

The respondent No.2/insurer is liable to pay the entire compensation amount together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the entire amount is realized.

¶203

As regards apportionment, the order of apportionment made by the Tribunal is not disturbed.

¶204

Accordingly, all the appeals are disposed off.

¶205

SD/JUDGE

¶206

kmv/msr/gab/yan

Judy Peter Roadrigues v. Mithun Ganapat Birje

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Judy Peter Roadrigues v. Mithun Ganapat Birje

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrappa S/O Maradeppa Malagi Vs Kallappa S/O Guddappa Hotteppanavar

The Manager Vs Shri.Chandrakant S/O Somanna Kesarkar

Gangavva W/O. Pandappa Bajentri, Vs Gurappa S/O. Basappa Teli

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs Babanna H @ Babu S/O Hadligi Bogappa

Ashok S/O. Holiyappa Hadapad Vs Mohamad Moosa S/O. Mohamad Imamsab

Gracy Alister Noronha Vs Mithun Ganapat Birje