Partly allowed

Sangavva W/O Hanamant Sutagatti v. Mohammadgouse

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2022MFA/100606/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the appeals filed by claimants against compensation awards. It re-determined compensation amounts by adjusting the loss of future prospects percentage. The court held that non-registration of the vehicle does not discharge the insurer's liability under Section 149. Appeals were partly allowed; insurer ordered to deposit revised amounts with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation re-determined to Rs. 10,06,750/ - (MVC 2630/2014) and Rs. 8,57,500/ - (MVC 2631/2014) to be paid by insurer with 6% interest; 50% via fixed deposit.

Sangavva W/O Hanamant Sutagatti Vs Mohammadgouse — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 100607 of 2017

¶3

C/W MFA No. 100606 of 2017

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100607 OF 2017 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100606 OF 2017 (MV)

¶8

IN MFA No.100607/2017:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SATEPPA S/O YALLAPPA VADDYALAPPAGOL AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: NESARAGI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. HANAMANT R LATUR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MOHAMMADGOUSE S/O TAJODDIN BEPARI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: JAMAKHANDI -587308, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶15

THE MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE, 414, VEER SAVARKAR MARG, NEAR SIDDI VINAYAK TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400025, THROUGH BELAGAVI OFFICE, NEAR RPD CROSS, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKAWADI, BELAGAVI-590003

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - SERVED)

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 100607 of 2017

¶19

C/W MFA No. 100606 of 2017

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2631/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL VI, BELAGAVI,PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

IN MFA No.100606/2017

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

SANGAVVA W/O HANAMANT SUTAGATTI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: NESARAGI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶24

SHIVU S/O HANAMANT SUTAGATTI AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: NESARAGI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶25

YALLAWWA W/O YAMANAPPA SUTAGATTI AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: NESARAGI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶26

(BY SRI. HANAMANT R LATUR, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

MOHAMMADGOUSE S/O TAJODDIN BEPARI,

¶29

…APPELLANTS

¶30

¶31

MFA No. 100607 of 2017

¶32

C/W MFA No. 100606 of 2017

¶33

AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: JAMAKHANDI -587308, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶34

THE MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE, 414, VEER SAVARKAR MARG, NEAR SIDDI VINAYAK TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400025, THROUGH BELAGAVI OFFICE, NEAR RPD CROSS, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKAWADI, BELAGAVI-590003

¶35

YAMANAPPA S/O HANAMANT SUTAGATTI AGE : 19 YEARS OCC : STUDENT R/O NESARAGI – 591512 TQ ; BAILHONGAL DIST : BELAGAVI.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 – NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT; R3 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

¶38

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2630/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL VI, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

MFA No. 100607 of 2017

¶42

C/W MFA No. 100606 of 2017

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

The claimants have filed these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT-VI, Belagavi, in MVC Nos.2630/2014 and 2631/2014.

¶45

The claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased – Hanamant Yamanappa Sutagatti and Basavaraj Satteppa Vaddyalappagol respectively. The claim petitions disclose that on 19.07.2014, Hanamant and Basavaraj were riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27-K-6173 from Nesargi and were returning to their village. When they reached Nesargi village, a goods vehicle (henceforth referred to as ‘offending vehicle’ for short) driven from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, both the riders of the motorcycles sustained severe injuries and they succumbed to the injuries at the spot.

¶46

The claimants therefore, filed separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the deceased – Hanamant and Basavarj were

¶47

¶48

MFA No. 100607 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100606 of 2017

¶49

45 years and 43 years old respectively and were employed as agricultural coolie and earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each.

¶50

The claim petitions were contested by the insurer of the offending vehicle who denied the accident and involvement of the vehicle in question. It contended that the offending vehicle was not registered in accordance with law and therefore, it was not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶51

Based on these contentions, the claim petitions were set down for trial. The claimants were examined and they marked Exs.P1 to P8. They also adduced evidence of a witness as PW.3. The insurer examined one of its officials as RW.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R6..

¶52

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal considering the age of the deceased – Hanamant as 52 years and age of Basavaraj as 43 years and their notional

¶53

¶54

MFA No. 100607 of 2017

¶55

C/W MFA No. 100606 of 2017

¶56

income at a sum of Rs.7,000/- each, awarded the following

¶57

compensation:

¶58

IN MVC No.2630/2014

¶59

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount
1.	Towards loss of dependency	Rs. 7,08,400/-
2.	Towards loss of estate	Rs. 1,00,000/-
3.	Towards funeral and transportation expenses	Rs. 25,000/-
4.	Towards loss of love and affection	Rs. 2,50,000/-
5.	Loss of consortium	Rs. 1,00,000/-
	Total	Rs.11,83,400/-
	Rounded off to	Rs.11,84,000/-

¶60

IN MVC No.2631/2014

¶61

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount
1.	Towards loss of dependency	Rs. 10,19,200/-
2.	Towards loss of estate	Rs. 1,00,000/-
3.	Towards funeral and transportation expenses	Rs. 25,000/-
4.	Towards loss of love and affection	Rs. 50,000/-
	Total	Rs.11,94,200/-
	Rounded off to	Rs.11,95,000/-

¶62

In so far as liability to pay the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was not registered in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore, the insurer was exempted from indemnifying the owner of the offending vehicle and thus directed the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.

¶63

¶64

MFA No. 100607 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100606 of 2017

¶65

Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants are in

¶66

appeal.

¶67

The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the offending vehicle was though not registered but yet, was insured by the insurer and therefore, it was liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶68

At this stage, the learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the compensation determined by the Tribunal is excessive in as much as the Tribunal had factored 15% as the loss of future prospects in the case of claimants in MVC No.2630/2014 instead of 10% and 30% in MVC No.2631/2014 instead of 25%. He also submitted that the Tribunal had awarded excessive compensation under conventional heads.

¶69

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for the insurer.

¶70

The accident in question is not in dispute. The claimants are entitled to compensation by considering the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.7,500/- per

¶71

¶72

MFA No. 100607 of 2017

¶73

C/W MFA No. 100606 of 2017

¶74

month each and loss of future prospects at 10% in MVC No.2630/2014. Likewise, the claimants are entitled to compensation by considering loss of future prospects at 25% in MVC No.2631/2014. If the same is taken into consideration, the compensation to which the claimants are entitled to is redetermined as follows:-

¶75

IN MVC No.2630/2014

¶76

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount
1.	Towards loss of dependency	Rs. 8,16,750/-
2.	Towards loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
3.	Towards funeral and transportation expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
4.	Towards loss of love and affection	Rs. 1,60,000/-
	Total	Rs.10,06,750/-

¶77

IN MVC No.2631/2014

¶78

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount
1.	Towards loss of dependency	Rs. 7,87,500/-
2.	Towardsparental consortium	Rs. 40,000/-
3.	Towards funeral and transportation expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
4.	Towards loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
	Total	Rs. 8,57,500/-

¶79

In so far as contention of the learned counsel for

¶80

the insurer that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation since the vehicle in question was not registered and did not

¶81

¶82

MFA No. 100607 of 2017

¶83

C/W MFA No. 100606 of 2017

¶84

carry a registration certificate, the same is not a fundamental breach of the policy condition and is not a ground available for the insurer under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶85

In that view of the matter, these appeals are allowed in part. The claimants in MVC No.2630/2014 are entitled to compensation of a sum of Rs.10,06,750/- as against Rs.11,84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and claimant in MVC No.2631/2014 is entitled to compensation of a sum of Rs.8,57,500/- as against Rs.11,95,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petitions till the date of deposit.

¶86

The compensation re-determined by this Court shall be paid by the insurer of the offending vehicle along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of its deposit.

¶87

The insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation along with interest before the Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶88

10 -

¶89

MFA No. 100607 of 2017

¶90

C/W MFA No. 100606 of 2017

¶91

Upon deposit, 50% of the compensation along with interest shall be deposited in the fixed deposit in the names of claimant Nos.2 and 3 in MVC No.2630/2014 in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.

¶92

Upon deposit, 50% of the compensation along with interest shall be deposited in fixed deposit in the name of the claimant in MVC No.2631/2014 in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.

¶93

SD/JUDGE

¶94

PMR

¶95

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sangavva W/O Hanamant Sutagatti v. Mohammadgouse

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangavva W/O Hanamant Sutagatti v. Mohammadgouse

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Gyandamalla S/O Sampathraj Kothari Vs Smt Lalita W/O Late Mallikarjuna Kundagol

Ramachandra Annayya Bhat Vs Subray Venkatraman Bhat

Sri Gajanana Yeshwant Bedke Vs Smt Shantabai @ Tarabai Mohan Badavannache

Sulbha Dilip Bhide Vs the Managing Director

Sri. Hanamappa S/O. Manappa Gudagaji Vs Ramchandra S/O. Kuppa Gouda

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Rekha W/O. Shivaputra Kamble