Dismissed

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Shri S.a.Nathan

Karnataka HC18 Oct 2022MFA/2318/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed by an insurance company against a Motor Vehicles Tribunal award. The appellate court rejected the appellant's claims regarding negligence, quantum of compensation, and lack of driving license, dismissing the appeal and maintaining the Tribunal's decision.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the judgment and award of the Tribunal were upheld.

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.2318/2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ROBERTSONPET, K.G.F., REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 5^TH AND 6^TH FLOORS KRISHI BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. … APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SHRI. S.A.NATHAN SON OF SHRI. SANTHOSHAM AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS

¶12

2 . SMT. M. ROSE MARY W/O. SHRI S.A. NATHAN MAJOR,

¶13

3 . SHRI. PAUL STEPHEN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶14

¶15

4 . SHRI. STANLEYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶16

5 . SMT. MARY PREMAKUMARI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶17

6 . SMT. MARY SUGUNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶18

7 . SMT. PUSHPA LILLY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶19

8 . SHRI. LAURENCE ALEXANDER AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶20

9 . SHRI. LIDWIN ALOYSIOUS PALAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶21

10 . SMT. SHEELA PREMA LILY USHA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶22

RESPONDENTS 3 TO 10 ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 AND ALL OF THEM ARE RESIDING AT NO.43, ‘B’ BLOCK, CHAMPION REEF, K.G.F.

¶23

11 . SHRI. S. RAVIKUMAR SON OF SHRI SAMPANGI MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.10 DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD NEAR COURT PREMISES ROBERTSONPET, K.G.F.-563 117.

¶24

12 . SHRI. RAVICHANDDAR SON OF SHRI PERKUMAL MAJOR

¶25

NEAR MARIYAMMA TEMPLE

¶26

¶27

DR. AMBEDKARNAGAR OORGAUM POST, KGF-563 120. ... RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI C.PATTABI RAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R10; VIDE ORDER DATED 07.08.2017 NOTICE TO R11 AND R12 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶29

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.245/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, KGF, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,06,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE PETITION.

¶30

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

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 10.

¶33

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 31.10.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.245/1995 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at K.G.F. (‘the Tribunal’ for short) questioning the liability and quantum of compensation.

¶34

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶35

¶36

The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company is that, inspite of the fact that the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to consider the negligence, the claimants have not led any evidence and the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the concept of rash and negligent driving for grant of compensation under the provisions of Section 166 of M.V. Act is unknown to law is erroneous. The counsel also would contend that the observation made by the Tribunal that framing of issue with regard to negligence is not sustainable is erroneous. He also further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and there was no driving license to drive the vehicle.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 10 would submit that the Tribunal has not committed any error and considered the documents of complaint, FIR, chargesheet and statement of witnesses and this Court, earlier made an observation that documentary evidence has not been considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has considered the

¶38

¶39

same. Hence, it does not require any interference. The counsel also would submit that the compensation awarded is very meager and apart from that, in order to prove the fact that the driver had no driving license, the Insurance Company has not summoned the RTO, who issued the endorsement, though the same is marked. Hence, it does not require any interference.

¶40

Having heard the respective counsel and also on

¶41

perusal of the material available on record, this Court earlier remanded the matter for fresh consideration and thereafter, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have appeared before the Tribunal and the respondents have not appeared and the petitioners submitted that there is no additional evidence and already the evidence is available before the Court in terms of evidence of P.W.1 and also the documents i.e., notice, FIR, panchanama, inquest and charge-sheet are marked before the Tribunal. Apart from that, PM report is also produced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, while considering the material on record, in the absence of any contra evidence, accepted the fact that the accident is on account of negligence on the part of the driver of

¶42

¶43

the vehicle. However, committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the concept of rash and negligent driving for grant of compensation under the provisions of Section 166 of M.V. Act is unknown to law and observation was also made by

¶44

the Tribunal that framing of issue with regard to negligence is not sustainable and the said reasoning is erroneous. However, considering the material on record, particularly, the evidence of P.W.1 and documentary evidence, the Tribunal rightly comes to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle.

¶45

Now coming to the compensation is concerned, it is the case of the year 1995. In the evidence of P.W.1, it is elicited

¶46

that the deceased was earning Rs.60/- to 70/- per day, after deducting owner expenses, since he was working as driver with the owner of the vehicle. Having taken note of the said fact and also recent proposition of law for considering future prospects, even if the admission of P.W.1 is taken and future prospects is added, it comes to the quantum of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, with regard to the quantum of

¶47

¶48

compensation also, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal.

¶49

The counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company

¶50

also brought to notice of this Court that, earlier an amount of Rs.50,000/- is paid under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. Hence, the same shall be deducted from the total compensation to be paid.

¶51

The other contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company is that there was no driving license to drive the vehicle. No doubt, the respondents examined the investigator and official witness as R.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked the document as Exs.R1 to R5, particularly the endorsement as at Ex.R5, the same has not been proved by summoning the RTO, who is the competent person to speak with regard to the same. Under the circumstances, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the same is not proved. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal.

¶52

¶53

9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶54

following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) The appeal is dismissed.

¶57

(ii) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶58

(iii) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Shri S.a.Nathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Shri S.a.Nathan

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. N. Jagadeesh Vs the Manager

Srinivasa R Vs Sathisha

Smt Muniyamma Vs M/S. Bharathi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Divisional Manager , Vs Subhan Sab

Sri Subbaraya Reddy Vs the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Sr. Administrative Officer Vs Bajaj Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.