Allowed

Anwar Pasha v. the Manager

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2022MFA.CROB/5/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court judgment modifies a Claims Tribunal award in motor accident claims. The court set aside the finding holding the trailer owner liable, directing the tractor insurer to pay the full amount. It recalculated compensation for dependency and funeral expenses for a deceased rider and awarded reasonable compensation for a surviving seriously injured pillion rider, reducing interest rates.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal finding regarding trailer owner liability set aside; compensation enhanced to Rs. 10,46,064/- for fatal accident and maintained at Rs. 85,000/- for injury case; interest reduced from 8% to 6%

Anwar Pasha Vs the Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶3

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.11490 OF 2012(MV-D) C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 11491 OF 2012 MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 4 OF 2015(MV-D) MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 5 OF 2015(MV-D)

¶9

IN MFA 11490/2012 BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD NO 2B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSIONR ROAD, BANGALORE 560 027 REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER MOTOR TP CLAIMS HUB THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., MAHALSKHMI CHAMBER S NO 9, M G ROAD BANGALORE 560 001 …APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. LINGARAJ H S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT.SHYLA W/O PRAKASH AGED 29 YEARS

¶15

¶16

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶17

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶18

BABY YESHASWINI (HANDICAPPED) D/O LATE PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS

¶19

BABY NIDHISHREE D/O LATE PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS 3 MONTHS

¶20

RESPONDENT Nos.2 & 3 ARE MINORS REP BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SHYLA

¶21

A LL ARE R/O SATHANUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI, MOTHATHI MAIN ROAD KANAKAPURA TALUK

¶22

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶23

THIBBE GOWDA S/O THIPPE GOWDA

¶24

SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶25

4(a) SMT GOWRAMMA W/O THIBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶26

4(b). SMT LEELAVATHI D/O LATE THIBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶27

4(c) SMT NAGARATHNA D/O LATE THIBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶28

4(d). SUNDAR

¶29

S/O LATE THIBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶30

¶31

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶32

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶33

ALL ARE R/O KURUBARAHALLI DODDI VILLAGE, SATHANUR HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 571 511

¶34

SHRI PUTTEGOWDA S/O JOGISIDDEGOWDA MAJOR R/AT SATHANUR HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT 571 511. …RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. SATHISH B.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3: SRI. S.G. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R5: NOTICE TO R4 (a) TO (d) SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶36

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:6.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1446/2009 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER-MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.6,96,280/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION

¶37

IN MFA 11491/2012 BETWEEN

¶38

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD NO.2B UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027, REP.BY THE MANAGER, MOTOR TP CLAIMS HUB THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, BANGALORE-560 001 ...APPELLANT

¶39

¶40

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶41

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶42

(BY SRI.LINGARAJ H S., ADVOCATE)

¶43

AND

¶44

1 . ANWAR PASHA

¶45

S/O ABDUL PASHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT JANATHA SITE SATHANUR TOWN KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGAR DIST-571511.

¶46

2. THIBBE GOWDA

¶47

S/O THIPPE GOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶48

2(a) SMT GOWRAMMA W/O THIBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶49

2(b). SMT LEELAVATHI D/O LATE THIBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶50

2(c) SMT NAGARATHNA D/O LATE THIBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶51

2(d). SUNDAR S/O LATE THIBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶52

ALL ARE R/O KURUBARAHALLI DODDI VILLAGE, SATHANUR HOBLI

¶53

¶54

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶55

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶56

KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 571 511

¶57

SHRI PUTTEGOWDA S/O JOGISIDDEGOWDA MAJOR R/AT SATHANUR HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK

¶58

RAMANAGAR DISTRICT 571 511. …RESPONDENTS

¶59

(BY SRI. SATHISH B., ADVOCATE FOR R1: SRI. S.G. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3: NOTICE TO R2(a) TO (d) ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶60

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:6.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1447/2009 ON THE FILE OF 6TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.85,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶61

IN MFA CROB 4/2015 BETWEEN

¶62

SMT SHYLA, W/O PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶63

2 . YESHASWINI, D/O PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,

¶64

3 . NIDHISHREE, D/O PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,

¶65

CROSS OBJECTER NOS 2 AND .3 ARE MINORS,

¶66

6 - MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶67

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶68

REP BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN & MOTHER CROSS OBJECTER NO.1. ALL ARE R/AT SHATHANUR VILLAGE & HOBLI MOTHATHI MAIN ROAD, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANGARA DISTRICT-562117. ...CROSS OBJECTORS

¶69

(BY SRI.SATHISH B, ADVOCATE )

¶70

AND

¶71

1 . THE MANAGER,

¶72

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., NO.2-B, UNITED BUILDING ANNEX, MISSION ROAD/LALBAGH ROAD, BANGALORE-27.

¶73

2 . THIBBE GOWDA

¶74

S/O THIPPARE GOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,

¶75

2(a) GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE THIBBEGWODA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶76

2(b) LEELAVATHI,

¶77

D/O LATE THIBBEGWODA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶78

2(c) NAGARATHNA,

¶79

D/O LATE THIBBEGWODA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶80

2(d) SUNDAR,

¶81

S/O LATE THIBBEGWODA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶82

¶83

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶84

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶85

ALL ARE R/AT KURUBARAHALLI, DODDI VILALGE, SATHANUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANGARA DISTRICT-562117.

¶86

3 . MR. PUTTEGOWDA, S/O JOGISIDDEGOWDA, RESIDING AT SATHANUR VILLAGE, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANGARA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS

¶87

(BY SRI.LINGARAJ H S., ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2(a) TO 2(d) AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 01.12.2022)

¶88

THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA.NO.11490/2012 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:06.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1446/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶89

IN MFA CROB 5/2015 BETWEEN

¶90

ANWAR PASHA S/O ABDUL PASHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT JANATHA SITE SATHANUR TOWN KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGAR DIST-571511 ...CROSS OBJECTOR

¶91

¶92

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶93

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶94

(BY SRI.SATHISH B., ADVOCATE )

¶95

AND

¶96

1 . THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., NO.2-B, UNITED BUILDING ANNEX, MISSION ROAD/LALBAGH ROAD, BANGALORE-27.

¶97

2 . THIBBE GOWDA

¶98

S/O THIPPARE GOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,

¶99

2(a) GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE THIBBEGWODA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶100

2(b) LEELAVATHI,

¶101

D/O LATE THIBBEGWODA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶102

2(c) NAGARATHNA,

¶103

D/O LATE THIBBEGWODA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶104

2(d) SUNDAR,

¶105

S/O LATE THIBBEGWODA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶106

ALL ARE R/AT KURUBARAHALLI, DODDI VILALGE, SATHANUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANGARA DISTRICT-562117.

¶107

¶108

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶109

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶110

3 . MR. PUTTEGOWDA, S/O JOGISIDDEGOWDA, RESIDING AT SATHANUR VILLAGE, KANAKAPURA TALUK

¶111

RAMANGARA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS

¶112

(BY SRI.LINGARAJ H S., ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2(a) TO 2(d) AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 01.12.2022)

¶113

THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA.NO.11491/2012 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:06.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1447/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶114

THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶115

JUDGMENT

¶116

MFA Nos.11490/2012 and 11491/2012 are filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short, ‘the Act’) and MFA Crob.Nos.4/2015 and 5/2015 are filed by the claimants under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 06.10.2012 passed by the VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT at

¶117

10 -

¶118

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶119

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶120

Bengaluru City, in MVC Nos.1446/2009 and 1447/2009. Since the challenge is to the same judgment, both the appeals and cross objections are clubbed together, heard and common judgment is being passed.

¶121

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals and cross-objections briefly stated are that on 01.02.2009 at about 8.15 p.m. deceased Prakash was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42/E-85 on Sathnur Kabbal road along with Anwar Pasha as a pillion rider. At that time, a tractor bearing registration No.KA-05/T-3702 and 1012 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the rider and pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and rider died on the way to the hospital.

¶122

The claimants filed petition under Section 166

¶123

of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that they

¶124

11 -

¶125

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶126

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶127

have spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, funeral expenses etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶128

On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the deceased and the medical expenses are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶129

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants in all examined 3 witnesses

¶130

12 -

¶131

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶132

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶133

as PW-1 to PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries and Prakash succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.6,96,280/- and Rs.85,000/respectively, along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit 70% of the award amount and owner of the trailer to pay 30% of the award amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals and cross objections have been filed.

¶134

Sri H.S.Lingaraj, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has raised the following contentions:

¶135

13 -

¶136

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶137

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶138

Firstly, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the tractor was not negligent in causing the accident. But the Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the tractor has contributed 70% to the accident.

¶139

Secondly, as per the sketch and mahazar it is clear that it is a head on collision. The deceased has also contributed to the accident. But the Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the tractor alone has contributed to the accident.

¶140

Thirdly, the Insurance Company has examined the officer of the company as RW-1. He has categorically stated that the deceased who is the rider of the motorcycle was negligent in causing the accident. The driver of the tractor was not negligent in causing the accident. He has followed all the procedure of law and traffic rules. The Tribunal without considering the evidence

¶141

14 -

¶142

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶143

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶144

of RW1 and without considering the IMV report – Ex.P3 and rough sketch – Ex.P4 has erred in holding that the driver of the tractor was negligent in causing the accident.

¶145

Re.quantum in MFA No.11490/2012 & MFA Crob 4/2015 (MVC No.1446/2009)

¶146

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the

¶147

deceased was earning Rs.7,500/- per month, the same is not established by the claimants by producing documents. Therefore, the notional income assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

¶148

Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’.

¶149

Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

¶150

15 -

¶151

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶152

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶153

Fourthly, in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE

¶154

AND OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS ( MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. is on the higher side.

¶155

Re.quantum in MFA No.11491/2012 & MFA Crob 5/2015 (MVC No.1447/2009)

¶156

Firstly, considering the injuries sustained by the

¶157

claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

¶158

Secondly, in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS ( MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. is on the higher side. Hence, he

¶159

16 -

¶160

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶161

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶162

sought for allowing the appeals filed by the Insurance Company and dismissing the cross-objections filed by the claimants.

¶163

On the other hand, Sri Sathish, learned counsel

¶164

appearing for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶165

Firstly, the specific case of the claimants is that the driver of the tractor was rash and negligent in driving the same and dashed against the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42/E-85. Due to the aforesaid accident the rider suffered injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital and the pillion rider suffered injuries. It is nobody’s case that the accident has occurred by the trailer.

¶166

Secondly, even as per IMV report there is no damage caused to the trailer. This fact has been admitted by RW-1 who is an officer of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal,

¶167

17 -

¶168

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶169

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶170

contrary to the materials and contrary to the evidence on record has held that the accident has occurred by using the tractor and trailer both. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the owner of the trailer is liable to pay 30% of the compensation amount, is unsustainable.

¶171

Thirdly, the deceased Prakash was riding the motorcycle on the left side of the road and the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle, due to which Prakash died and the pillion rider Anwar Pasha suffered injuries. Anwar Pasha has been examined as PW-2. He is an eyewitness to the accident. In his evidence, he has categorically stated that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor.

¶172

Fourthly, immediately after the accident a complaint has been lodged against the driver of the tractor, FIR has

¶173

18 -

¶174

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶175

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶176

been registered and after thorough investigation police have filed the charge sheet.

¶177

Fifthly, it is very clear from the IMV report and rough sketch that the driver of the tractor was negligent in causing the accident.

¶178

Re.quantum in MFA No.11490/2012 & MFA Crob 4/2015 (MVC No.1446/2009)

¶179

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased

¶180

was earning Rs.7,500/- per month by working as a coolie. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as only Rs.3,000/-.

¶181

Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in

¶182

AIR 2017 SC 5157, the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards ‘future prospects’.

¶183

19 -

¶184

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶185

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶186

Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’.

¶187

Fourthly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANU RAM reported in 2018

¶188

ACJ 2782, each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶189

Re.quantum in MFA No.11491/2012 & MFA Crob 5/2015 (MVC No.1447/2009)

¶190

Due to the accident the claimant has suffered

¶191

grievous injuries. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment, he has to suffer the disability throughout his life. The overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the

¶192

20 -

¶193

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶194

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶195

cross-objections filed by the claimants and dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

¶196

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the judgment and award and the original records.

¶197

The case of the claimants is that on 01.02.2009 at about 8.15 p.m. deceased Prakash was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42/E-85 on Sathnur Kabbal road along with Anwar Pasha as a pillion rider. At that time, a tractor bearing registration No.KA-05/T-3702 and 1012 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the rider and pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and rider died on the way to the hospital.

¶198

To prove the case, the claimant No.1, wife of the deceased Prakash was examined as PW-1, the pillion rider

¶199

21 -

¶200

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶201

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶202

Anwar Pasha was examined as PW-2. Claimant No.1 in her statement has reiterated the averments made in the claim petition. Anwar Pasha who is the pillion rider as well as eyewitness to the accident has categorically stated that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. To disprove the case of the claimants the respondents have not examined the driver of the tractor who is the best witness to say about the accident.

¶203

Even as per the IMV report, mahazar and rough sketch it is very clear that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of the parties and the materials available on record has rightly held that the driver of the tractor is negligent in causing the accident.

¶204

22 -

¶205

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶206

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶207

It is nobody’s case that the accident has occurred due to the use of the trailer. The specific case of the claimants is that the tractor hit the motorcycle and the rider and pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries, rider succumbed to the injuries. Even as per the IMV report there is no damage to the trailer. Even RW-1 in his evidence has admitted that there is no damage caused to the trailer. It is very clear from the evidence of the parties and the materials available on record that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The Tribunal has erred in holding that the owner of the trailer is also liable to pay 30% of the compensation amount. That part of the finding is unsustainable and accordingly, it is set aside. The insurer of the tractor is liable to pay the entire compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

¶208

23 -

¶209

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶210

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶211

Re.quantum in MFA No.11490/2012 & MFA Crob 4/2015

¶212

(MVC No.1446/2009)

¶213

It is not in dispute that Prakash died in the road traffic accident occurred on 01.02.2009 due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing registration No.KA05/T-3702 by its driver.

¶214

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.7,500/- per month. But they have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2009, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.5,000/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘PRANAY

¶215

24 -

¶216

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶217

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶218

SETHI’ (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.7,000/-. Since there are 3 dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount, i.e., Rs.4,667/- has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘16’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,96,064/- (Rs.4,6671216) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶219

In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’. Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

¶220

25 -

¶221

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶222

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶223

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

¶224

the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.2 and 3, children of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of

¶225

‘loss of parental consortium’.

¶226

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

¶227

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	896,064
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of spousal consortium	40,000
Loss of Parental consortium	80,000
Total	10,46,064

¶228

26 -

¶229

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶230

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶231

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

¶232

Rs.10,46,064 /- as against Rs.6,96,280/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶233

**Re.quantum in * MFA No.11491/2012 & MFA Crob 5/2015

¶234

(MVC No.1447/2009)

¶235

Considering the evidence of the parties and considering the documents produced the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.85,000/- is just and reasonable.

¶236

In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of

¶237

this Court in JOYEETA BOSE (supra) the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal in both the matters is reduced from 8% p.a. to 6% p.a.

¶238

In the result, the appeals and the crossobjections are disposed of. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶239

* Corrected vide Chamber order dated: 29.09.2023

¶240

27 -

¶241

MFA No. 11490 of 2012

¶242

C/W MFA No. 11491 of 2012 MFA.CROB No. 4 of 2015 MFA.CROB No. 5 of 2015

¶243

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶244

In view of the order dated 12.11.2020 passed by this Court, the claimants are not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 549 days in filing the cross objections.

¶245

The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶246

In view of disposal of the main matters, all pending applications stand disposed of.

¶247

CM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 67

¶248

Sd/JUDGE

Anwar Pasha v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwar Pasha v. the Manager

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

Sri Nagarajappa Vs Sri. Nagendra N

Mr K Praveen S/O Krishnappa Vs Mr Nagappa S/O Channappa

Sri Chandrappa Vs Universal Sompoo General

Sri. Siddharatha Vs Sri. Narayanappa

Smt Tanuja Vs Sri Nandeesh C G

Mr Prabhu Shankar @ Prabhu Sharkar Vs the Regional Manager