Partly allowed

The Divisional Manager, v. Chatramma W/O Late Mookappa

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2019MFA/23909/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed appeals by vehicle owner dismissing insurer's appeal to set aside liability, holding no permit violation for short border crossing. Court enhanced compensation to Rs.11,35,000/, directing insurer to pay.

What did the court decide?

Owner's appeal allowed; Insurer's appeal dismissed; Claimants entitled to Rs.11,35,000/- with interest; Insurance company directed to deposit amount.

The Divisional Manager, Vs Chatramma W/O Late Mookappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶7

MFA Cross Objection No.100087 of 2018 c/w MFA Nos.23909 of 2012 and 23413 of 2012 (MV)

¶8

IN MFA.CROB NO.100087 OF 2018

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. CHATRAMMA W/O LATE MOOKAPPA AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:HOUSE WIFE,

¶11

B.NAGARAJ S/O LATE MOOKAPPA AGE:26 YEARS,

¶12

B.HANUMESH S/O LATE MOOKAPPA AGE:25 YEARS,

¶13

LAKSHMI D/O LATE MOOKAPPA AGE:21 YEARS,

¶14

MINOR DEVAMMA D/O LATE MOOKAPPA AGE:17 YEARS,

¶15

APPELLANT NO.5 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. CHATRAMMA/CROSS OBJECTOR NO.1

¶16

ALL ARE R/O BOGAPUR VILLAGE, SINDHANUR TALUK

¶17

¶18

NOW R/O RENUKA NAGAR, TALUR ROAD, BALLARI 583101.

¶19

... CROSS OBJECTORS

¶20

(By Sri. AMARE GOUDA, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

C. OBULESLSHAPPA @ HANUMANTHAPPA S/O C.ERANNA MAJOR, OCC:DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING REG.NO.NO.KA-36/TA-2980, R/O:HERAKALLU VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BALLARI DIST:583122

¶23

NAGARAJ S/O KRISHNA RAJU MAJOR, OCC:OWNER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING REG.NO.KA-36/TA-2980, R/O:VALABELLARY VILLAGE, SINDHANUR TALUK, RAICHUR DIST:584128

¶24

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BALLARI 583101.

¶25

... RESPONDENTS

¶26

(By Sri. GODE NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R3 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 11.1.2019)

¶27

THIS MFA.CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.05.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1414/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶28

¶29

IN MFA NO.23909 OF 2012

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BELLARY, REP. BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, TP-HUB, II FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI 580 029.

¶32

...APPELLANT

¶33

(By Sri. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

CHATRAMMA W/O LATE MOOKAPPA, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,

¶36

B NAGARAJ S/O LATE MOOKAPPA, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

¶37

B. HANUMESH S/O LATE MOOKAPPA, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

¶38

LAKSHMI D/O LATE MOOKAPPA, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

¶39

DEVAMMA D/O LATE MOOKAPPA, AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

¶40

RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶41

ALL ARE R/O BOGAPUR VILLAGE, SINDHANUR TALUK, NOW R/O RENUKA NAGAR TALUR ROAD, BELLARY.

¶42

¶43

C OBULESHAPPA @ HANUMANTHAPPA S/O C ERANNA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA-36/TA-2980, R/O: HERAKALLU VILLAGE, TQ: SHIRUGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY.

¶44

NAGARAJ S/O KRISHNA RAJU, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE TRACTOR, BEARING NO. KA-36/TA-2980, R/O: VALABELLARY VILLAGE, TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: BELLARY.

¶45

... RESPONDENTS

¶46

(By Sri. M.AMAREGOUDA, ADV. FOR R1-R3 SRI. GODE NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R7 4 AND R5 MINORS REP. BY R1. R6 SERVED.)

¶47

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03-05-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1414/2011 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACTII, BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.4,29,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶48

IN MFA NO.23413 OF 2012

¶49

BETWEEN:

¶50

NAGARAJ S/O KRISHNA RAJU, OCC: MAJOR, OWNER OF THE TRACTOR, BEARING REG. NO.KA-36/TA-2980, R/O: VALABELLARY, VILLAGE, SINDHANUR TALUK, RAICHUR DIST.

¶51

... APPELLANT

¶52

(By Sri. GODE NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶53

¶54

AND:

¶55

CHATRAMMA W/O LATE MOOKAPPA, AGE: 39 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE,

¶56

B. NAGARAJ S/O LATE MOOKAPPA, AGE: 20 YEARS,

¶57

B HANUMESH S/O LATE MOOKAPPA, AGE: 19 YEARS,

¶58

LAKSHMI D/O LATE MOOKAPPA, AGE: 15 YEARS,

¶59

DEVAMMA D/O LATE MOOKAPPA, AGE: 11 YEARS,

¶60

RESPONDENT 4 AND 5 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN, & MOTHER CHATRAMMA. RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶61

ALL ARE R/O: BOGAPUR VILLAGE, TALUK: SINDANUR, NOW R/O: RENUKA NAGAR, TALUR ROAD, BELLARY.583101

¶62

C. OBULELSHAPPA @ HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O: C.ERANNA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER OF TRACTOR REG.NO.KA-36/TA-2980, R/O: HERAKALLU VILLAGE, SIRUGUPA TALUK, BELLARY. 583 121

¶63

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE, CHIEF OFFICER, LTD., BELLARY. 583 101.

¶64

... RESPONDENTS

¶65

¶66

(By Sri. M.AMAREGOUDA, ADV. FOR R1-R5. SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R7 RESPONDENT NO.6 SERVED.)

¶67

THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:03-05-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1414/2011 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT-II, BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.4,29,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶68

MFA Crob AND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶69

JUDGMENT

¶70

Though MFA Crob and the appeals came up for admission, with the consent of both parties, they are heard finally.

¶71

MFA No.23909 of 2012 is filed by the insurer whereas MFA No.23413 of 2012 is filed by the owner of the vehicle and MFA Cross Objection No.100087 of 2018 is filed by the claimant assailing the judgment and award dated 03.05.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal II, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’, for short) in MVC No.1414 of 2011.

¶72

¶73

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

¶74

for the parties.

¶75

Rank of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for convenience.

¶76

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for short) seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/inter alia contending that on 27.06.2011 at about 7.00 pm near Peddaharivanam village, Siruguppa-Adoni road, when the husband of the first petitioner namely Mookappa was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04/EL-2995, at that time, a tractor bearing registration No.KA-36/AT2980 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed to the motorcycle due to which said Mookappa sustained injuries and died on the spot. The claimants being the

¶77

¶78

wife and children of the deceased filed claim petition seeking compensation under various heads.

¶79

Pursuant to the notice, respondents 1 to 3 appeared before the Court through their counsel. Second respondent filed statement of objections and the first respondent adopted the same.

¶80

Respondent No.2-owner of the tractor has taken the contention that the driver of the tractor had not committed any offence; there was no negligence on his part. However, admitted that the vehicle in question belongs to him, the same was insured with respondent No.3 and the policy was valid as on the date of the accident and further denied all other averments made in the petition as false and prayed for dismissing the claim petition against respondents 1 and 2.

¶81

The 3^rd respondent-insurer appeared through counsel and filed statement of objections by denying the averments made in the petition as false. However, the

¶82

¶83

insurer admitted issuance of insurance policy for the vehicle in question and also contended that if any liability, the same is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and further taken the plea that the driver of the tractor did not possess any valid and effective driving licence and the tractor also had no valid permit to ply at the place of incident. Hence, prayed for dismissing the claim petition against the insurer.

¶84

Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal

¶85

framed the following issues:

¶86

“1. Whether the petitioners prove the death of one Mookappa-husband of 1^st petitioner, father of petitioner Nos.2 to 5 on 27.6.20111 at about 7.00 pm near Peddaharivanam village, Siruguppa-Adoni road due to actionable negligence of driver of tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-36/AT-2980?

¶87

Whether the petitioners are entitled compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?

¶88

What order or decree?”

¶89

¶90

To substantiate the claim, the first petitioner

¶91

examined herself as PW-1 and got marked 6 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-6. On behalf of respondent No.3, Administrative officer of the 3^rd respondent was examined as RW-1 and 2^nd respondent was examined as RW-2 and they got marked 6 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-6.

¶92

After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.4,29,000/- fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle. However, the Tribunal directed

¶93

the insurance company to satisfy the award amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶94

Assailing the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal fastening the liability on the owner regarding pay and recovery, the owner of the vehicle filed MFA 23413 of 2012 whereas the insurer filed MFA

¶95

¶96

No.23909 of 2012 challenging both on the quantum of compensation as well as directing pay and recovery and the claimants filed MFA Cross Objection No.100087 of 2018 seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶97

Learned counsel for the insurer contended that there was violation of the policy conditions since the owner of the vehicle did not have the permit to ply the vehicle in Andhra Pradesh State where the accident had occurred at Peddaharivanam village which comes within the limits of Adoni Police Station, Andhra Pradesh and respondent No.1 did not have a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and was having driving licence for non-transport vehicles. Thereby, there is serious violation of the policy conditions by respondent No.2-owner of the tractor and the liability has to be fastened on the owner of the tractor but the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the insurer and directed to pay and recover which is not correct.

¶98

¶99

Further, learned counsel also contended that though he has challenged the quantum of compensation but has not argued on the point of quantum of compensation.

¶100

Per contra, Sri. Gode Nagaraj, learned

¶101

counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle has contended that though the Tribunal fastened the liability on the insurer and directed to satisfy the award, but has ordered recovery from the owner of the vehicle due to violation of the policy conditions regarding holding of DL without a transport endorsement. The said issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and others reported in (2016) 4

¶102

Supreme Court Cases 298 wherein it is held that if the unladen weight of the vehicle does not exceed 7500 kg, no separate endorsement with respect to ‘Transport’ is required as per Section 10(2) of the Act. Therefore, the question of pay and recovery does not arise and further

¶103

¶104

learned counsel for the owner contended that there is no violation of the conditions of the permit since the land of the owner is situated though within the Karnataka border but to reach his land, the driver is required to take the vehicle through the border of Andhra Pradesh State wherein no separate permit is required as per Section 88 of the Act and there is no violation of the permit as per Section 66 of the Act. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal directing recovery is not correct. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the finding against the owner.

¶105

Learned counsel appearing for the crossobjectors-claimants contended that the claimant, have stated that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as a shepered, but the Tribunal has considered only Rs.3,500/- per month which is very meager and even for an unskilled labour, this Court used to consider Rs.6,000/- per month as notional income for

¶106

¶107

the accident of the year 2011. Therefore, at least Rs.6,000/- has to be considered as the monthly income of the deceased and also contended that no future prospects of the deceased has been considered by the Tribunal as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and further contended that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of consortium to the first claimant as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782. Hence, prayed for allowing the cross objection.

¶108

Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the records, the points that arises for consideration are:

¶109

“i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the owner by

¶110

¶111

directing the insurer to pay and recover from the owner and calls for interference?

¶112

ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

¶113

iii) What order?”

¶114

The claimant has established the factum of accident that occurred on 27.06.2011 at about 7.00 p.m., near Peddaharivanam Village, Siruguppa-Adoni road, whereas the case was registered by the Adoni Police (Andhra Pradesh). Due to the accident, the husband of the first petitioner namely Mookappa died on the spot. The contention of the Insurance Company before the Tribunal in their objection statement was that though the vehicle was duly insured with insurer, but the driver of the tractor was not holding a driving license for transport vehicle and also there was no permit to ply the vehicle on the road that too in Andhra Pradesh though the vehicle was registered in the State

¶115

¶116

of Karnataka. Therefore, the learned counsel strongly argued that there is a clear violation of the conditions of the policy both on the driving license as well as the permit. The learned counsel also contended that though the D.L. is produced before the Tribunal i.e. Ex.R2, which is an endorsement issued by the Transport Authority, Bellary, the respondent No.1-driver had only for LMV (non-transport) but had no transport endorsement and the same was covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), but there is no permit for the vehicle in question to use the vehicle for the commercial purpose. Ex.R1, the insurance policy was issued for commercial purpose. Such being the case, the vehicle requires permit as per Section 66 of the Act and therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal.

¶117

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the owner contended that the tractor is not a

¶118

¶119

commercial vehicle as it is purchased for agricultural purpose. Though the vehicle was insured as a commercial vehicle package policy but as on the date of the accident, the vehicle was used for agricultural purpose by respondent No.2 for cultivating the land which was purchased by him from one Katari Bangari Raju under the Ex.R6. Apart from that, the permit is required only for the passenger vehicle or goods carrier and it is only a tractor without any trailer. Therefore, the permit is not required as per Section 66 of the Act and further contended that the vehicle though crossed the Karnataka border however, the land of respondent No.2 is situated in the border of Karnataka in Raichur District and in order to reach the land of respondentowner, the tractor is required to pass through Andhra Pradesh border. As per Section 88 of the Act, there is no necessity for a separate permit of Andhra Pradesh to ply on the road other than the Karnataka. Therefore, fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle is not

¶120

¶121

correct and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) , a driver holding driving license for non-transport vehicle is also entitled to drive the transport vehicle. However, the tractor is not a transport vehicle or commercial vehicle or goods vehicle. Therefore, the driving license of respondent No.1 is sufficient to drive the tractor. Hence, the findings of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the owner shall be set aside by fastening the liability on the insurer. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal and dismiss the appeal by the insurer.

¶122

Learned counsel for the claimants also supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle and on the point of quantum, the learned counsel stated that the age of deceased was 45 years and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as a shepherd, but the Tribunal has considered only Rs.3,500/- per month, which is meager. The quantum

¶123

¶124

of compensation can be decided subsequent to the latter part of the judgment.

¶125

In view of the rival contentions of the owner

¶126

as well as the insurer and on perusal of the Ex.R1, which is a package policy issued by the insurer, there is no evidence to show that at the time of accident the tractor was used for commercial purpose other than the agricultural purpose. The owner of the vehicle examined the driver wherein he has categorically stated that the vehicle was taken by him in order to reach the land for the purpose of agriculture. Of course, the vehicle met with an accident in the border of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh State and as per Ex.R5, 12 k.ms., from the Karnataka border, the land was situated within the District of Raichur and in order to reach the land of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 took the vehicle through Andhra Pradesh road touching the jurisdiction of Adoni police station. The requirement of

¶127

¶128

permit as per Section 66 of the Act - shows that any transport vehicle used for any other public purposes whether or not such vehicle is a tractor and it was not carrying any goods or any tractor or attached to the tractor. As per Section 2 (44) “tractor” means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller; that means the tractor itself cannot be considered as a goods vehicle or a commercial vehicle and even as per Section 2 (31) “permit” means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorizing the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle; cannot be considered as transport vehicle and used for any commercial purpose. Therefore, the permit is not necessary as per Section 66 of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned for the insurer that necessity of permit for the vehicle cannot be acceptable. That apart, as regards to the

¶129

¶130

vehicle had passed through the Andhra Pradesh border as already stated, is 12 k.ms. away from the Karnataka border.

¶131

The learned counsel appearing for the owner

¶132

brought to the notice of this Court that as per Section 88 of the Act, there is no need for separate permit to use

¶133

the border area of a State. For convenience, Section 88(1) of the Act, reads as follows:

¶134

“88. Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted. – (1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned;

¶135

Provided that a goods carriage permit, granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region, for any area in any other region or regions within the same

¶136

¶137

State shall be valid in that area without the counter-signature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region or of each of the other regions concerned:

¶138

Provided further that where both the starting point and the terminal point of a route are situate within the same State, but part of such route lies in any other State and the length of such part does not exceed sixteen kilometers, the permit shall be valid in the other State in respect of that part of the route which is in that other State notwithstanding that such permit has not been countersigned by the State Transport authority or the Regional Transport Authority of that other State:

¶139

(a) where a motor vehicle covered by a permit granted in one State is to be used for the purposes of defence in any other State, such vehicle shall display a certificate, in such form, and issued by such Authority, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, to the effect that the vehicle shall be used for the period specified therein exclusively for the purposes of defence; and

¶140

(b) any such permit shall be valid in that other State notwithstanding that such permit has not been countersigned by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of that other State.

¶141

¶142

xxxx

¶143

xxxx”

¶144

Perusal of the proviso to Section 88(1) clearly goes to show that where both starting point and terminal point of a route are situate within the same State, but part of such route lies in any other State and the length of such part does not exceed sixteen kilometers, the permit shall be valid in the other State.

¶145

Here in this case, the vehicle is not a goods carriage or a commercial vehicle which requires permit and in view of Section 88 of the Act, no permit is required for the vehicle passing within the State border not exceeding sixteen kilometers. As per Ex.R5, the report issued by the PWD Authorities, the accident occurred within 12 kilometers from the Karnataka border. Therefore, no separate permit is required to pass through Andhra Pradesh border. Therefore, the

¶146

¶147

contention of the insurer that there is violation of the permit as well as State permission cannot be acceptable. Hence, in my opinion, there is no violation of the conditions of the vehicle policy by respondent No.2. Merely, the insurer issued the commercial package vehicle policy that itself is not a ground to show that the vehicle was used for the commercial purpose or as a goods carriage. Therefore, requirement of permit is not required. Therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle is liable to be set aside. Hence, I answer point No.1 in favour of the owner and against the insurer.

¶148

compensation, the deceased is said to be shepherd, but no documents produced. However, for the accident that occurred during the year 2011, this Court used to consider the notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

¶149

¶150

the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 25% of the income shall be added towards future prospects for the age group 40-50 years. If Rs.1,500/- is added towards ‘future prospects’, the total income would be Rs.7,500/per month. The claimants are five in number and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Limited and Others reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, 1/4th of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased and not 1/3rd as deducted by the Tribunal. If Rs.1,875/- (1/4th of Rs.7,500/-) is deducted towards personal expenditure, the compensation towards ‘loss of dependency’ comes to Rs.5625 x 12 x 14 (appropriate multiplier) = Rs.9,45,000/-. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., (Supra) , the first claimant being the widow is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium and claimants No.2 to 5 being

¶151

¶152

the children are entitled to Rs.30,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium, which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- and they are also entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and another Rs.15,000/towards funeral expenses and

¶153

transportation of dead body.

¶154

In all, the claimants are entitled to the re-

¶155

assessed compensation as under:

¶156

Loss of Dependency	Rs.9,45,000.00
Loss of Spousal consortium	Rs.40,000.00
Loss of Parental Consortium (Rs.30,000 x2)	Rs.1,20,000.00
Loss of Estate	Rs.15,000.00
Funeral expenses transportation of dead body	Rs.15,000.00
Total	Rs.11,35,000.00

¶157

¶158

Accordingly, the appeal in MFA No.23909/2012

¶159

filed by the insurer is dismissed. The appeal in MFA No.23413/2012 filed by the owner of the vehicle is allowed. The finding of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle is set aside and the entire liability is fastened on the insurer.

¶160

MFA Crob No.100087/2018 filed by the claimants is allowed in-part. Hence, the claimants are entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.11,35,000/- as against Rs.4,29,000/- together with interest @ 6% p.a., the insurance company-respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and it is directed to deposit the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶161

The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the tribunal along with the LCR forthwith and the apportionment made by the tribunal is not disturbed.

¶162

¶163

The statutory deposit made by the owner of the vehicle in MFA No.23413/2012 is ordered to be refunded to the owner after due identification.

¶164

Sd/JUDGE Kmv upto para 14 msr

The Divisional Manager, v. Chatramma W/O Late Mookappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager, v. Chatramma W/O Late Mookappa

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

Fayaz Ahamed S/O. Allabaksha Tigadi Vs Nazeer Ahamad S/O. Muktumasab Mujawar

The Branch Manager, Vs Shri. Gurusiddappa S/O. Shivamurthy Badiger

The Branch Manager, Vs Shri. Wasim S/O. Abdul Tigadi

Miyasab S/O Ibrahimsab Kadiwal Vs Smt.Janatabi W/O Miyasab Kadiwal

Smt. Chatramma W/O Late Mookappa Vs C. Obuleslshappa @ Hanumanthappa

Nagaraj S/O Krishna Raju, Vs Chatramma W/O Late Mookappa