Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sundara

Karnataka HC18 Apr 2022MFA/10245/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal against the Motor Vehicles Tribunal's award. Affirming the Tribunal's decision, the Court held that the mother, sister-in-law, and nephew of the deceased were legally dependents eligible for compensation under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

What did the court decide?

The challenge to the award of Rs. 4,91,000/- was dismissed and the Tribunal's judgment was confirmed.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Sundara — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

M.F.A.NO. 10245/2011 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CITY CHAMBERS, KULYEDI BUILDING, K.S. RAO ROAD, MANGALORE, BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.44/45, 4^TH FLOOR, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560025. REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE APPEARING THROUGH V/C)

¶11

AND :

¶12

SUNDARA

¶13

S/O ITHTHU TADAMBAIL,

¶14

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶15

RESIDING NEAR HONNAYYA’S SHOP, SURATHKAL VILLAGE, MANGALORE,

¶16

(DECEASED BY LRS)

¶17

(a) SMT. SEETHU W/O DOMBE

¶18

(b) SMT. DAJU, W/O LATE BABU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶19

¶20

¶21

ALL ARE RESIDING AT D.NO.19-84, THADAMBAIL, SURETHKAL, MANGALORE.

¶22

HARISH M., S/O M. MOHAN POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT ‘JENENI’, GUDDE KOPPALA, SURATHKEL, MANGALOER.

¶23

... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI GIRISH J., ADVOCATE FOR

¶25

SRI DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A-C) R2-SERVED)

¶26

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.07.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.479/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, MANGALORE & MEMBER, MACT, MANGALORE AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,91,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT AND ETC.,

¶27

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The present appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 23.07.2011 passed in MVC.No.479/2009 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mangalore & Member, MACT, Mangalore.

¶30

¶31

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶32

On 15.01.2009 at 8.30 pm., the deceased Smt. Vimala was standing on the extreme side of the road. In the meanwhile, the Maruthi Omni Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01/N-8566 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Smt.Vimala. In the result, she sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to A.J.Hospital, Mangalore, wherein she was under treatment as inpatient and succumbed to the said injuries while under treatment in the said hospital on 22.01.2009. The claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of MV.Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, wherein the Tribunal has partly allowed the petition and awarded compensation of Rs.4,91,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being aggrieved by the same, the appeal is filed before this Court.

¶33

¶34

The appellant - Insurance Company has preferred the appeal on the ground that respondent Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) who were claimants were not legal dependents on the deceased Smt. Vimala. Hence, they are not entitled for compensation. On this line, learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company vehemently submitted that these claimants are not legal dependents on the deceased Smt. Vimala. Just because, assuming that they are the legal representatives of the deceased, but they cannot be treated as legal dependents. Hence, when they are not legal dependents on the deceased Smt. Vimala, they are not entitled for compensation, but the Tribunal has wrongly awarded the compensation. Therefore, prays for interference of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel

¶36

appearing for respondent Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) submitted that respondent No.1(a) is the mother of

¶37

¶38

the deceased and respondent No.1(b) is the sister-inlaw and respondent No.1(c) is the son of respondent No.1(b). They are all residing in the same roof and they are dependent on the income of the deceased and her husband Sundara. All are residing in the same house by doing labour work. Therefore, respondent Nos.1(b) and 1(c) were also contributing to the family and all together were running the family. Therefore, respondent Nos.1(b) and 1(c) are the legal dependents. Hence, it is rightly considered by the Tribunal and awarded compensation, which needs no interference. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶39

P.W.1 is claimant No.1(a). P.W.1 has

¶40

deposed in her evidence that deceased Smt. Vimala is her daughter. Claimant No.1(b) is the sister-in-law of the deceased Smt. Vimala and claimant No.1(c) is the son of claimant No.1(b) and they are all residing in the same roof. Hence, they are all the legal dependents. Further, P.W.1 has deposed in the

¶41

¶42

evidence that claimant No.1(b) is the widow and therefore, she started residing along with her. Therefore, they are the dependents. Further she deposed that deceased Smt. Vimala had no issues. Therefore, the deceased was living with her husband, mother and sister-in-law and son of sister-in-law. Therefore, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that they are not legal dependents on the income of the deceased. When claimant No.1(b) is also widow and naturally, after the death of her husband, she started residing with claimant No.1(a) and with the deceased. Therefore, all the claimants in the petition are said to be legal dependents. In the crossexamination of P.W.1, it is revealed that the husband of the deceased Smt. Vimala were doing coolie work and daughter Smt. Vimala died in the accident. Therefore, the husband of the deceased Smt. Vimala had filed the claim petition, but during pendency of the claim petition, he also died. Therefore, claimant

¶43

¶44

Nos.1(a), 1(b) and (c) are mother, sister-in-law and son of sister-in-law are the legal dependents on the income of the deceased.

¶45

P.W.2 is also claimant No.1(c) who is the

¶46

son of claimant No.1(b). He has deposed the relationship between them and how they are dependents on the income of the deceased, it is elaborately discussed by the Tribunal while answering issue No.3. Exs.P.14 and 15 are notarized copy of ration card, which proves the fact that all the claimants are residing in the same house and they are the legal dependents. Therefore, it can be said that claimant No.1(b) and 1(c) are also depending on the income of the deceased Smt. Vimala and her husband Sundara. It is pertinent to mention here that claimant No.1(b) is the sister of Sundara who is the husband of deceased Smt. Vimala. Therefore, quite naturally, claimant No.1(b) after becoming widow she returned to her mother’s house and started residing there,

¶47

¶48

which means she is legally depending on the family. Therefore, it is proved that claimant Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) are the legal dependents.

¶49

In this regard, the Tribunal has relied on

¶50

the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbai and Another, reported in 1987 ACJ Page 561, wherein it is observed by making interpretation of Section 110A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 that the legal representatives cannot be construed in a narrow manner, only to the spouse and children and parents of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the claimants as above stated are also legally depending on the deceased. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be confirmed by dismissing the appeal. There is no other point canvassed by either of the side. In the

¶51

¶52

result, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following

¶53

ORDER

¶54

The appeal is dismissed .

¶55

The judgment and award dated 23.07.2011 passed in MVC.No.479/2009 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mangalore & Member, MACT, Mangalore, is hereby confirmed.

¶56

No order as to costs.

¶57

Draw award accordingly.

¶58

The amount deposited by the appellant-

¶59

Insurance Company shall be transmitted by the Tribunal forthwith along with the TCR and copy of the order.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

PB

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sundara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sundara

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

Shri Vimal K S S/O Sri Sugantha Kumar L R Vs the Bracnh Manager

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Renukamma

The Branch Manager Vs N Puttaraju

The Sericultural Extension Officer Vs Sri D Ramachandrappa

Namadev S/O Bakkappa Kamble Vs the State through

Smt Sharavana Prabha Vs the Manager