Partly allowed

Sri R Bhojaraj Shetty v. Halappa M G

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2021MFA.CROB/46/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court set aside the liability portion of Motor Accident claims Tribunal awards, confirming it was correctly placed on the car driver. Regarding quantum, the Court modified awards in three cases: reducing compensation for the deceased where annual income was miscalculated and increasing compensation for injured persons to include specific heads like disability

What did the court decide?

Total compensation reduced to Rs.42,11,048 for deceased's claim; enhanced to Rs.5,21,500 for one injured claimant; enhanced to Rs.4,71,500 for another injured claimant; other issues dismissed.

Sri R Bhojaraj Shetty Vs Halappa M G — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2055 OF 2017 (MV) C\w

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROB No.46 OF 2019 and MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2056 OF 2017 and MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2057 OF 2017 C/w MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROB No.123 OF 2017

¶9

In MFA No.2055/2017

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

United India Insurance Co. Ltd Shivamogga DO RUB Building, B H Road A A Circle Shivamogga-577 201. Rep. by its Divisional Manager Smt. M Sudhamani

¶12

...Appellant

¶13

(By Shri B C Seetharama Rao, Advocate)

¶14

AND

¶15

Sri R Bhojaraj Shetty Aged about 57 years S/o late Ramanna Shetty

¶16

¶17

Smt. Rajani Aged about 44 years W/o R Bhojaraj Shetty

¶18

Sri Vinay Kumar Aged about 24 years S/o R Bhojaraj Shetty

¶19

All are residing at No.66-a Railway quarters Near:Railway Station Shivamogga-577 201.

¶20

Sri Halappa M G Aged about 74 years S/o Giriyappa Residents of Hiremalali Village Channagiri Taluk Davanagere District-577 002. (Owner of i-10 Car No.KA 14/N-6521)

¶21

Mr. Rahamathulla S/o Mr. Hussain Peer R/at NO.14-308 Opp. Banda Masjid Hospital Street, C-B Road Thadapathri Post Ananthpur District Andhra Pradesh State-500211. (Owner of Lorry No.AP.02/x-9399)

¶22

5.The Manager Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd., II Floor Dara House, 2 NSC Bose Road Chennai-600 001. (Insurer of Lorry No.AP-02/X-9399)

¶23

….Respondents

¶24

(By Shri K Prasanna Shetty, Advocate for R1 to 3;

¶25

¶26

Shri O Mahesh, Advocate for R6;

¶27

Vide order dated 05.04.2021 notice to R5 is dispensed with)

¶28

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 07.10.2016 passed in MVC No.301 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII, Shivamogga, awarding compensation of Rs.47,58,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till entire realisation.

¶29

In MFA Crob No.46/2019

¶30

BETWEEN

¶31

Sri R Bhojaraj Shetty S/o late Ramanna Shetty Aged about 59 years

¶32

Smt. Rajani W/o R Bhojaraj Shetty Aged about 46 years

¶33

Sri Vinay Kumar S/o Bhojaraj Shetty Aged about 26 years

¶34

All are residing at H. No.66-A Railway quarters Near:Railway Station Shivamogga-577 201.

¶35

….Cross Objectors

¶36

(By Shri K Prasanna Shetty, Advocate )

¶37

AND

¶38

Halappa M G S/o Giriyappa

¶39

¶40

Aged about 76 years R/at Hiremalali Village Channagiri Taluk Davanagere District.

¶41

United India Insurance Company Ltd Divisional Office RUB Building B H Road, A A Circle Shivamogga.

¶42

Rahamathulla S/o Husain Peer R/ at No.14/308 Opp. Banda Masjid Hospital Street, C B Road Thadapathri Post Ananthpur District Andrapradesh State.

¶43

4.The Manager Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd., II Floor Dara House, 2 NSC Bose Road Chennai-600 001.

¶44

…Respondents

¶45

(By Shri V R Prasanna, Advocate for R1; Shri B C Seetharama Rao, Advocate for R2; Shri O Mahesh, Advocate for R4; Vide order dated 01.06.2021 notice to R3 is dispensed with)

¶46

This MFA Crob No.46 of 2019 is filed in MFA No.2055 of 2017 under Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC., read with Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 07.10.2016 passed in MVC No.301 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII Shivamogga, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

In MFA No.2056/2017

BETWEEN

United India Insurance Co. Ltd Shivamogga DO RUB Building, B H Road A A Circle Shivamogga-577 201. Rep. by its Divisional Manager Smt. M Sudhamani

¶51

...Appellant

¶52

(By Shri B C Seetharama Rao, Advocate)

¶53

AND

¶54

Mr. S H Swagath Aged about 27 years S/o Sri S M Halappa R/of Rathanakara Layout Opp. Krushi College Abbalagere Post Shivamogga Taluk-577 201.

¶55

Sri Halappa M G Aged about 74 years S/o Giriyappa Residents of Hiremalali Village Channagiri Taluk Davanagere District-577 002. (Owner of i-10 Car No.KA 14/N-6521)

¶56

Mr. Rahamathulla S/o Mr. Hussain Peer R/at No.14-308 Opp. Banda Masjid Hospital Street, C-B Road Thadapathri Post

¶57

¶58

Ananthapur District Andhra Pradesh State-500211. (Owner of Lorry No.AP.02/X-9399)

¶59

4.The Manager Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd., II Floor Dara House, 2 NSC Bose Road Chennai-600 001. (Insurer of Lorry No.AP.02/X-9399)

¶60

….Respondents

¶61

(By Shri Srinivasa S A, Advocate for R1; Sri V R Prasanna , Advocate for R2; Notice to R3 is held sufficient; Shri O Mahesh, Advocate for R4)

¶62

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 07.10.2016 passed in MVC No.504 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII, Shivamogga, awarding compensation of Rs.5,65,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till entire realisation.

¶63

In MFA No.2057/2017

¶64

BETWEEN

¶65

United India Insurance Co. Ltd Shivamogga DO RUB Building, B H Road, A A Circle Shivamogga-577 201. Rep. by its Divisional Manager Smt. M Sudhamani

¶66

...Appellant

¶67

(By Shri B C Seetharama Rao, Advocate)

¶68

AND

¶69

¶70

Mr. V Sathyajeeth Aged about 28 years S/o Sri A N Venkatesh Rao Mechanical Engineer R/of II Cross, Thilaknagara Shivamogga Taluk-577 201.

¶71

Sri Halappa M G Aged about 74 years S/o Giriyappa Residents of Hiremalali Village Channagiri Taluk Davanagere District-577 001. (Owner of i-10 Car No.KA 14/N-6521)

¶72

Mr. Rahamathulla S/o Mr. Hussain Peer R/at NO.14-308 Opp. Banda Masjid Hospital Street, C-B Road Thadapathri Post Ananthapur Distirct Andhra Pradesh State-500211. (Owner of Lorry No.AP.02/x-9399)

¶73

The Manager Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd., II Floor Dara House, 2 NSC Bose Road Chennai-600 001. (Insurer of Lorry No.AP.02/x-9399)

¶74

….Respondents

¶75

(By Shri Chandrakanth R Patil, Advocate for R1; Sri V R Prasanna , Advocate for R2; Shri O Mahesh, Advocate for R4; Notice to R3 is held sufficient)

¶76

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award

¶77

¶78

dated 07.10.2016 passed in MVC No.505 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII, Shivamogga, awarding compensation of Rs.4,01,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till entire realisation.

¶79

In MFA Crob No.123/2017

¶80

BETWEEN

¶81

V Sathyajeeth S/o A N Venkatesh Rao Aged about 28 years Mechanical Engineer R/at 2^nd Cross Tilak Nagar-577 201 Shivamogga City.

¶82

….Cross Objector

¶83

(By Shri Chandrakanth R Patil, Advocate )

¶84

AND

¶85

Halappa M G S/o Giriyappa Aged about 75 years R/at Hiremalali Village Channagiri Taluk-577 213 Davanagere District. (Owner of i-10 Car No.KA 14/N-6521)

¶86

United India Insurance Company Ltd Divisional Office RUB Building B H Road, A A Circle Shivamogga-577 201.

¶87

Rahamathulla S/o Husain Peer Ra/t No.14/308

¶88

¶89

Opp. Banda Masjid Hospital Street, C B Road Thadapathri Post Ananthpur District Andhra Pradesh State.

¶90

The Manager Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd., II Floor Dara House, 2 NSC Bose Road Chennai-600 001.

¶91

…Respondents

¶92

(By Shri V R Prasanna, Advocate for R1; Shri B C Seetharama Rao, Advocate for R2; Shri O Mahesh, Advocate for R4; Notice to R3 is dispensed with)

¶93

This MFA Crob No.123 of 2017 is filed in MFA No.2057 of 2017 under Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC., read with Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 07.10.2016 passed in MVC No.505 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII Shivamogga, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶94

These Miscellaneous First appeals and Cross Objections coming on for hearing, this day, INDIRESH J., delivered the following:

¶95

J U D G M E N T

¶96

These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company and the

¶97

claimants, challenging the common judgment and award dated 07^th October, 2016 in MVCs 301, 504, 505 and 1127 of 2013 I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident

¶98

¶99

Claims Tribunal-VII Shivamogga (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal’).

¶100

MFAs 2055, 2056 and 2057 of 2017 are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award in MVC No.301, 504 and 505 of 2013 respectively. MFA Cross-objections 123 of 2017 and 46 of 2019 are filed by the claimants in MVC 505 of 2013 and MVC 301 of 2013 respectively, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶101

For the sake of convenience, the parties in these appeals cross-objections are referred to with their status and rank before the Tribunal.

¶102

It is the case of the claimants in the claim petition that, on 14^th January, 2013 deceased-Vijaykumar B and claimants were traveling in a car bearing registration number KA-14/N6521 from Shivamogga towards Ayanoor side and the said Car was being driven by one Ajay. It is the case of the claimants that when the car reached near Tavarekoppa Simhadhama, a lorry bearing registration number AP-02/X-9399 dashed to the Car and as a result, the said Vijaykumar B died and others got

¶103

¶104

injured. It the case of the claimants that the said accident occurred due to the negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending lorry in question. Hence Claim petition in MVC No.504 of 2013 is filed by S.H. Swagath seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident; MVC No.505/2017 is filed by one Sathyajeet, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him; and MVC No.301/2013 is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased-Vijaykumar seeking compensation.

¶105

On service of notice, respondents entered appearance and filed detailed written statement. Respondent No.3 placed exparte before the Tribunal. The second respondent-Insurance Company contended that the alleged accident occurred due to negligence of the part of the offending lorry and therefore, sought for dismissal of the claim petition against the driver/owner of the Car.

¶106

The Tribunal after considering the pleadings on record, has framed issues for its consideration. Claimants were examined as PW1 to PW4 and 3 more witnesses were examined

¶107

¶108

as PW5 to PW7. Claimants produced 165 documents and same were marked Exhibits P1 to P165. Doctor was examined as CW1 and documents were marked as per Exhibits C1 to C3 in MVC No.503/2013. The respondents have examined three witnesses as RW1 to RW3 and produced 5 documents and same were marked as Exhibits R1 to R5.

¶109

The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, allowed the claim petition in MVC No.301 of 2013 awarding compensation of Rs.47,58,200/- to the claimant; in MVC No.504 of 2013 the claimant was awarded Rs.5,65,500/-; and claimant in MVC No.505 of 2013 was awarded Rs.4,01,500/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation in all the claim petitions. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation as meagre, the claimants have preferred these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation and the insurance company questioned the impugned judgment and award on the ground of liability and quantum.

¶110

We have heard Sriyuths B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the United India Insurance Company, O.

¶111

¶112

Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the Cholamandalam General Insurance Company, K. Prasanna Shetty, Chandrakanth R Patil, learned counsel appearing for the claimants and V.R. Prasanna, learned counsel appearing for Insured-vehicle.

¶113

Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated evidence on record. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have fastened the entire liability on the driver of the lorry in question, since the perusal of spot sketch produced at Exhibit P165 establish that the alleged accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry as driver of the said lorry suddenly took to right side of the road and as such, dashed to the moving car and this aspect of the matter was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal while fastening the liability and also argued that the compensation awarded is on the higher side and requires to be modified.

¶114

Sri O. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for Cholamandalam Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal

¶115

¶116

rightly fastened the liability on the driver of the Car and as such, no interference is required to disturb the impugned judgment and award on the ground of liability.

¶117

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants, in chorus, submitted that the Tribunal rightly fastened the liability as per the finding recorded on issue No.1 and same does not require any interference in this appeal. However, the learned counsel for claimants argued that as regards awarding of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the material on record and therefore, the claimants are entitled for just compensation as required under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶118

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have carefully perused the original documents. Perusal of the record would clearly indicate that one Ajay was driving the car on 14^th January, 2013 from Shivamogga to Ayanoor side and deceased-Vijaykumar, and injured Swagath and V. Sathyajeet, were inmates of the car. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the

¶119

¶120

Insurance Company with regard to liability, we have carefully scrutinised the sketch produced as per Exhibit P165. On reappreciation of the said document, we found that the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the Driver of the Car, exonerating the insured of the lorry in question. The police records also substantiate the fact that the driver of the car, while overtaking the lorry, hit the portion of the lorry.

¶121

In this regard, we have carefully re-assessed the testimony of PW5-Govindappa, who has been examined by the claimants as an eye witness to the accident. Undisputably, he is not a charge-sheet witness and therefore, even if certain stray sentences deposed by the PW5 with regard to the negligence as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, the same cannot be a basis to take another possible view departing from the finding recorded by the Tribunal and therefore, there is no merit in the arguments advanced by Sri B.C. Seetha Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company with regard to liability and therefore, we are

¶122

¶123

of the view that MFAs.2055, 2056 and 2017 of 2017 are liable to be dismissed on the question of liability.

¶124

Insofar as quantum of compensation to be awarded in MFA.2055 of 2017 connected with MFA Crob.46 of 2019 is concerned, deceased Vijaykumar.B was aged about 23 years as on the date of accident and he was working as Software Engineer at Sun Technologies, Bangalore earning monthly income of Rs.28,600/- as per Exhibit P9-Salary certificate. The claimants have examined the employer as PW7. Testimony of PW7 would indicate that the salary of the deceased was Rs.28,600/- per month as on the date of accident and therefore, the annual salary would be Rs.3,43,200/- and after deducting Income tax and professional tax in a sum of Rs.17,720/-, the net salary would be Rs.3,25,480/-. In the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, 40% is to be added to the income towards future prospects. In terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v.

¶125

¶126

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the appropriate multiplier would be 18, out of the total income 50% is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, loss of dependency would be Rs.41,01,048/- (Rs.3,25,480/- + 40% x 18 x ½). There are two dependents, and therefore claimants are entitled for Rs.80,000/(Rs.40,000 x 2) towards loss of consortium. Claimants are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and for funeral expenses. Hence, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.42,11,048/- as against Rs.47,58,200/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and to this extent the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company in MFA 2055 of 2017, on quantum, is liable to be allowed and MFA Cross Objections 46 of 2019 filed by the claimants is liable to be dismissed.

¶127

Insofar as quantum of compensation in MFA 2056 of 2017 (MVC No.504/2013) is concerned, as on the date of accident, injured Swagath was aged about 23 years and working as an Engineer. Pursuant to the accident, he suffered injury and

¶128

¶129

as per the disability certificate at Exhibit P45 so also perusal of the testimony of the Doctor would indicate that the claimant suffered disability of 6% to the whole body. From the records, it is found that the claimant was selected as a Junior Computer Programmer by District Co-ordinator and District programmer of, BRC, T.N. Pura, of Invensis Technologies Pvt Ltd. However, it is further revealed from the records that the claimant has continued in employment even after accident and therefore, the claimant is not entitled for compensation under loss of future income. Taking into account the injuries sustained by the claimant as per Exhibits P44 and P48, the award made by the Tribunal on pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of income during the laid-up period and towards future medical expenses, conveyance, food and nutrition, do not call for any enhancement. However, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards disability and amenities, taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the claimant and therefore, the claimant is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- towards disability and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities. Hence, we have re-assessed the quantum of compensation and the

¶130

¶131

claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,21,100/- as against Rs.5,65,500/- awarded by the Tribunal and to this extent the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is to be allowed in part.

¶132

Insofar as award of compensation in MFA.2057 of 2017 connected with MFA.Crob.123 of 2017 (MVC No.505 of 2013) is concerned, the claimant-V.Sathyajeet (PW4) deposed that he is an Engineer by profession working in a private establishment and drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. He produced the disability certificate issued by the Doctor as per Exhibit P164 which reveals that he suffered loss of physical function of left lower limb to an extent of 22% and therefore, the disability to the whole body would be 7.3%. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the educational qualification of the claimant, who is a Mechanical Engineer, assessed the income at Rs.15,000/per month and the same is accepted in this appeal also. The claimant was aged about 24 years as on the date of accident and in terms of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT

¶133

¶134

CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the appropriate multiplier would be 18. Hence, the loss of future income would be Rs.2,36,520/- (Rs.1,80,000/- x 18 x 7.3%). Award of compensation towards pain and suffering and loss of income during laid up period is just and proper. However, Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities and attendant charges and therefore, having regard to the testimony of the PW4 and Exhibit P65, we are of the considered view that the claimant is entitled for Rs.50,000/towards loss of amenities and Rs.20,000/- towards attendant and conveyance charges. Hence, the claimant is entitled for Rs.4,71,500/- as against Rs.4,01,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶135

Hence we pass the following:

¶136

O R D E R

¶137

i) Miscellaneous First Appeals No.2055 and 2056 of 2017 are allowed in part;

¶138

ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.301 of 2013 is modified and reduced to Rs.42,11,048/(Rupees forty two lakh eleven thousand forty eight only) as against Rs.47,58,200/-,

¶139

¶140

with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation;

¶141

iii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.504 of 2013 is modified and reduced to Rs.5,21,500/- (Rupees five lakh twenty one thousand five hundred only) as against Rs.5,65,500/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation;

¶142

iv) MFA Crob.123 of 2017 is partly allowed;

¶143

v) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.4,71,500/- (Rupees four lakh seventy one thousand five hundred only) as against Rs.4,01,500/- with interest at the rate of % per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation;

¶144

vi) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement, remains intact;

¶145

vii) The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order;

¶146

¶147

viii) The modified compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of Tribunal;

¶148

ix) If any amount is transferred to the account of the claimants in excess, the same shall be refunded to the Insurance Company, after due identification in accordance with law;

¶149

x) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2057 of 2017 filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited; and MFA Crob.46 of 2019 filed by the claimants stand dismissed;

¶150

xi) Draw modified award accordingly;

¶151

xii) The Registry shall transfer the amount in deposit with original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith;

¶152

xiii) In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶153

Sd/JUDGE

¶154

Sd/JUDGE

¶155

UN/lnn

Sri R Bhojaraj Shetty v. Halappa M G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Bhojaraj Shetty v. Halappa M G

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

The Manager Vs Smt Kalavathi

Sri. K C Preetham Vs Sri. P Nageshwara Rao

Smt. Shylaja Vs the Managing Director

The Claim Manager Vs Kishan Rao

Smt. Meena Vs M/S Cholamandalam

Smt. Gangulamma Vs the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.