Allowed

Smt Poornima v. Dr M Chandrashekar

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2021MFA/9701/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a revision appeal against the dismissal of a Section 163A compensation claim. The court held that Section 163A operates on a no-fault liability basis, rendering impleadment of the claimant's vehicle owner/insurer unnecessary. The claim was remade at Rs. 3,82,838.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; Claimants entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,82,838 plus interest at 6% p.a.

Smt Poornima Vs Dr M Chandrashekar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

M.F.A. NO.9701 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. POORNIMA W/O. LATE SURESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶11

KUM. SNEHA D/O. LATE SURESH AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS

¶12

KUM. SPOORTHI D/O. LATE SURESH AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS

¶13

APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER, THE APPELLANT NO.1, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.161, TRIVENINAGARA T. NARASIPURA TOWN - 571 124 MYSURU DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI.B.S. SRINIVASA, ADV.,)

¶15

AND:

¶16

DR. M. CHANDRASHEKAR MANAGING DIRECTOR SKM ANIMAL FEEDS AND FOODS

¶17

¶18

INDIAN LTD., NO.813/2A3, CHAVADIPALYAM PUDUR ROAD, NANJAI UTHUKALI MODAKURICH DISTRICT ERODE, TAMILNADU - 638 104.

¶19

THE UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE MUTHAIAH COMPLEX ERODE - 638 011. TAMILNADU BRANCH AT DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., NEAR BALLAL CIRCLE KRISHNMURTHYPURAM MYSURU - 570 024. ... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. B.S. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 DR. M. CHANDRASHEKAR SERVED)

¶21

¶22

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.407/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, T NARASIPURA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶23

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated 28.07.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Tirumakudalu Narasipura in MVC No.407/2016

¶26

¶27

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶28

briefly stated are that on 12.01.2015, the deceased Suresh who was traveling in a car bearing registration No.KA-55-M-3474 along with his inmates which was driven by its driver Shreyas dashed against the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-34-B-4204, which was parked in the middle of the road without any sign and signal. As a result of the aforesaid accident, Suresh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

¶29

The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 163A of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of accident and was an agriculturist and earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry who had parked the said lorry in the middle of the road without any sign and signal. The claimants claimed

¶30

¶31

compensation to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- along with interest.

¶32

The first respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed ex-parte. The insurance companyrespondent No.2 filed written statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was also pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Car who hit the front portion of the parked vehicle on the left side of the road. A complaint was lodged by the driver of the lorry and a case came to be registered against the driver of the Car namely Shreyas for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C. The abated charge sheet was filed against the accused for the said offences. It was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive.

¶33

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶34

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

¶35

¶36

recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On behalf of respondents the Administrative Officer of respondent No.2 examined himself as R.W.1 and did not choose to produce any documentary evidence.

¶37

The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned

¶38

judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Car by its driver, as a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. It was further held, that claimants had not proved the negligent act of the driver of the lorry who had parked the said lorry in the middle of the road without any signal. It was held that the claimants not having made the owner and insurer of the Car as parties to the claim petition, the claim petition is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the claim petition. Being

¶39

¶40

aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking the amount of compensation.

¶41

Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to the provisions of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles' Act. which provides for payment of compensation for the death or injuries suffered in the motor vehicles accident. He further submitted that in a claim petition filed under 163A, the question of negligence cannot be gone into and the compensation has to be awarded on the basis of no fault liability. Hence, he submits that the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal requires to be set aside and the claim petition be allowed.

¶42

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

¶43

Insurance company submits that the owner and the insurer of the Car was not made a party and on this ground the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. He further submits that the accident occurred

¶44

¶45

solely due to the negligence of the driver of the Car. Hence, the insurer of the Lorry in question is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶46

9. We have considered the submission made by

¶47

the learned counsel for the parties.

¶48

Admittedly, Suresh succumbed to accidental

¶49

injuries when the Car in which he was traveling as an inmate dashed against the lorry which was parked on the road. The accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the Car for which he was charge sheeted.

¶50

Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act is a self contained code which was introduced as a social security measure. A reading of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act would indicate that the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in case of death or permanent disability due to

¶51

¶52

accident arising out of use of motor vehicle,

¶53

compensation as indicate in second schedule to the legal heirs or the victim as the case may be. Hence, in a claim petition filed under Section 163A of the motor vehicle Act there is no requirement for the claimants to plead and establish the negligence and the claim petition is based on principle of no fault liability as held by the Apex Court in the case of RAM KHAILADI AND

¶54

ANOTHER VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY

¶55

AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 . The claim petition under Section 163A of the Act was filed against the owner and insurer of the lorry in question which was involved in the accident. There is no requirement to make the owner and insurer of the Car in which the deceased was traveling as a party since the compensation is claimed on the principle of no fault liability. However, the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the owner and insurer of the Car are not made parties to the

¶56

¶57

claim petition and also the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Car. Hence, the same is contrary to the mandate of Section 163A of the Act and the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition requires to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.

¶58

The deceased was aged 45 years as on the date of the accident. The accident is of the year 2015. The claimants are entitled for compensation as indicated in Second Schedule. The income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.40,000/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the amount comes to Rs.26,667/- adopting proper multiplier '14' since the deceased was aged 45 years as on the date of the accident, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.3,73,338/(26,667 X 14") towards "loss of dependency". The claimants are also entitled for the compensation of Rs. 9,500/- under the conventional heads. In all the claimants are entitled to total

¶59

¶60

compensation of Rs.3,82,838/- with interest at the rate of 6% p. a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶61

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

¶62

The impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,82,838/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

Smt Poornima v. Dr M Chandrashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Poornima v. Dr M Chandrashekar

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

Smt K Laxmi Vs the Assistant Commissioner

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mrs Irene D Paul

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs Susheelamma

Sri.G. Rudramurthy Vs Sri. H. Kishor Kumar

Smt Thejaswini Vs Sri Jagadeeshappa Kacharabi

The Managing Director Vs Sri P Chandramouli