Partly allowed

Smt. Padmavati S/O Basaaraj Malammanavar v. the Managing Partner

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2023MFA/101124/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court decided twoMiscellaneous First Appeals arising from a motor accident claim. The Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, holding them liable despite a license dispute under Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. The claimant's appeal was partly allowed to enhance the dependent loss compensation to Rs. 20,79,000 based on estimated income and guidelines in Sarla Verma and Pranay Seth

What did the court decide?

Insurance appeal dismissed. Claimant appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs. 21,56,000 awarded with interest at 6% per annum.

Smt. Padmavati S/O Basaaraj Malammanavar Vs the Managing Partner — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11043-DB MFA No. 101981 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101981 OF 2022 (MV-D) C/W

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101124 OF 2022

¶11

IN MFA NO. 101981/2022 BETWEEN:

¶12

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., R.M. JOSHI BUILDING, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HERE REPRESENTED BY MANAGER.

¶13

…APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK AND SRI HASHANK HEGDE, ADVOCATES)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR

¶16

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Date: 2023.10.16 13:28:40 +0530

¶17

SMT. PADMAVATI W/O. BASAVARAJ MALAMMANAVAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: AMBEDKAR NAGAR, HIREHARKUNI, DHARWAD, PIN CODE-581113, NOW AT ARJUN VIHAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, PIN CODE-580030.

¶18

THE MANAGING PARTNER, UNIQUE CONSTRUCTIONS, ASHU GOPAL, ADI ROAD, AKKADAKATTI, KOTESHWARA, KUNDAPUR, UDUPI- 576222.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1-SERVED)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11043-DB MFA No. 101981 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2022

¶22

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.111/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HUBBALLI.

¶23

IN MFA NO. 101124/2022 BETWEEN:

¶24

SMT. PADMAVATI S/O. BASAVARAJ MALAMMANAVAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: AMBEDKAR NAGAR, HIREHARKUNI, NOW AT ARJUN VIHAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI ANJANEYA M., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

THE MANAGING PARTNER, UNIQUE CONSTRUCTIONS, ASHU GOPAL, ADI ROAD, AKKADAKATTI, KOTESHWARA, KUNDAPUR, UDUPI 576222.

¶27

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., R.M. JOSHI BUILDING, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI 580020, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK AND SRI SHASHANK HEGDE, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶30

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.111/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HUBBALLI AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION .

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11043-DB MFA No. 101981 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2022

¶33

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, BASAVARAJA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Both appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 12.01.2022 passed in MVC.No.111/2021 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hubballi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶36

Parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶37

The brief facts of the claim petition are as follows: On 2^nd day of September, 2020, at 4:40 p.m., Punit Malammanavar, the son of petitioner, was traveling on a motorcycle with registration No. KA-63/K-9011 from Hubballi towards Kundagol on the Hubli-Laxmeshwar road. At that time, a tipper lorry bearing No.KA-20/AA-6263 approached from the opposite direction at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, and collided with the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the motorcycle rider sustained severe injuries and tragically passed away at the scene. The petitioner further states that prior to the accident, her son was in good health, aged approximately 25 years on the date of the accident, and worked as a driver, earning a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11043-DB MFA No. 101981 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2022

¶40

along with additional allowances. Due to the accident, the petitioner suffered the loss of her earning family member, as well as emotional and financial hardships. Consequently, the petitioner seeks compensation from the respondents. In response to the notice, respondent No.1 was served but remained absent and was declared as an ex-parte respondent. Respondent No.2, represented by its advocate, filed a statement of objection, arguing that the driver of the lorry (the offending vehicle) did not possess a valid driving license, and therefore, the Insurance Company should not be held liable to pay compensation. Furthermore, it is contended that the deceased himself did not hold a valid driving license, and thus, the Insurance Company should not be liable for compensation. Additionally, it is argued that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle should also be considered as necessary parties in the petition. It is asserted that the motorcycle rider was driving in a rash and negligent manner, and the accident resulted from a head-on collision. On these grounds, respondent No.2 requests the dismissal of the petition with costs.

¶41

On the basis of rival pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11043-DB MFA No. 101981 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2022

¶43

Whether the petitioner proves that on 02.09.2021 at 4-04 p.m. when deceased Punit Malammanavar (son of the petitioner) was proceeding from Hubli towards Kundagol on Hubli-Laxmeshwar road near Sherewad village on his motorcycle bearing No.KA63/K-9011, then the Tipper lorry bearing No.KA-20/AA6263 came from Kundagol towards Hubballi i.e. from opposite side of motorcycle in high speed, rash or negligent manner and caused accident to the motorcycle and because of the accident, the motor cyclist died on the spot and said accident occurred due to fault of driver of the respondent No.1?

¶44

Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the said accident occurred due to fault of the motor cyclist and deceased had no any driving licence and hence, it is not liable to pay compensation, as pleaded in para No.6 of the objection?

¶45

Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and from whom?

¶46

What award or order?

¶47

To prove the case of petitioner, the petitioner got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to 10. On closure of petitioner’s side evidence, Insurance Company examined one witness as R.W.1 and got marked authorization certificate as Ex.R.1.

¶48

- 6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11043-DB MFA No. 101981 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2022

¶49

On hearing the arguments, the Tribunal has given its

¶50

findings to the above issues as under :

¶51

Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative. Issue No.2 : In the Negative. Issue No.3 : Affirmative in part. Issue No.4 : As per final order,

¶52

In view of the above findings, the Tribunal has

¶53

awarded the compensation of Rs.16,57,600/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶54

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the Insurance Company has preferred the appeal in MFA.No.101981/2022 questioning its liability to pay compensation and claimant has also filed appeal in MFA.No.101124/2022 for enhancement of compensation.

¶55

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF INSURANCE COMPANY

¶56

The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company argues that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident. Specifically, it is mentioned that the driver's license for a transport vehicle had expired on August 30, 2020, and it was renewed only on October 9, 2020. However, the accident

¶57

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11043-DB MFA No. 101981 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2022

¶59

occurred on September 2, 2020. Therefore, it is evident that on the date of the accident, the driver did not hold a valid driving license to operate a transport vehicle. The counsel contends that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the defense raised by the Insurance Company and, for these reasons, requests that the appeal be allowed.

¶60

To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for Insurance Company has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.4749/2008 ( arising out of SLP(c) No.17920/2006 ) Ram Babu Tiwari vs. United India

¶61

Insurance Co. Ltd., and Others .

¶62

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT-CLAIMANT.

¶63

The learned counsel representing the appellantclaimant asserts that the Tribunal correctly held the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation. However, regarding the actual award of compensation, it is argued that the Tribunal did not grant a just and proper amount in accordance with the law, facts, and the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. On these grounds, the counsel seeks an increase in the compensation amount.

¶64

¶65

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11043-DB MFA No. 101981 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2022

¶66

After hearing the arguments from both sides and reviewing the records, the following points require our consideration:

¶67

Whether the appellant/Insurance Company has provided sufficient grounds to challenge the Tribunal's judgment and award concerning its liability.

¶68

Whether the appellant-claimant is entitled to an enhancement of compensation.

¶69

What the final order or award should be.

¶70

Our findings on the above points are as follows:

¶71

Point No. 1 is answered in the negative.

¶72

Point No. 2 is partly affirmed.

¶73

Point No. 3 will be addressed in the final order.

¶74

We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence and

¶75

documentation presented in this case. It is undisputed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent actions of the driver of the offending vehicle. The sole defense put forth by the Insurance Company is that the LMV (Light Motor Vehicle) driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was valid from September 23, 2017, and remained in force until September 29, 2028. The Insurance Company's defense

¶76

¶77

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11043-DB MFA No. 101981 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2022

¶78

centers on the fact that the LMV (transport license) was not renewed at the time of the accident. However, in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund

¶79

Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 , the defense raised by the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. The Tribunal correctly determined that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. We find no legal irregularities or infirmities regarding the liability imposed on the Insurance Company. Therefore, we answer point No. 1 in the negative.

¶80

Point No.2: With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,500/- per month, which is not in consonance with the chart issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In view of the said chart, Tribunal has to be considered the monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.13,750/-. In view of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another , reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 , the age of deceased was 25 years, hence ‘18’ multiplier is applicable. In view of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and

¶81

- 10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11043-DB MFA No. 101981 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2022

¶82

Others , reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , 40% of the income has to be added as future prospects of the deceased and 50% has to be deducted as personal and living expenses of the deceased, then loss of dependency comes to (Rs. 13,750/- + (40% Rs.5,500/-) – 50% = Rs.9,625/- ) Rs.9,625/- X 12 X 18 = Rs.20,79,000/-. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled for enhancement in loss of dependency.

¶83

Keeping in mind the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Sarla Verma’s and Pranay Sethi’s ( supra ), it is

¶84

just and appropriate to award compensation as under :

¶85

1.	Loss of dependency.	Rs.20,79,000/-
2.	For love and affection.	Rs.44,000/-
3.	For funeral expenses.	Rs.16,500/-
4.	For loss of estate.	Rs.16,500/-
	Total	Rs.21,56,000/-

¶86

Accordingly, petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, we answer point No.2 in the partly affirmative.

¶87

Point No.3: For the aforesaid discussions and reasons, we proceed to pass the following :

¶88

11 -

¶89

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11043-DB MFA No. 101981 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2022

¶90

O R D E R

¶91

(i) Appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA.No.101981/2022 is dismissed.

¶92

(ii) Appeal filed by claimant in MFA.No. 101124/2022 is allowed in part.

¶93

(iii) Appellant-claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.21,56,000/with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization as against Rs.16,57,600/- with interest at 6% per annum awarded by the Tribunal.

¶94

(iv) Insurance Company shall deposit the above said amount within 60 days from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal.

¶95

(v) Amount deposited in MFA.No.101981/2022 shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶96

(vi) Draw decree accordingly.

¶97

Sd/JUDGE

¶98

Sd/JUDGE

¶99

Ckk List no.: 1 sl no.: 36

Smt. Padmavati S/O Basaaraj Malammanavar v. the Managing Partner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Padmavati S/O Basaaraj Malammanavar v. the Managing Partner

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

United India Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs Smt Suhasini W/O Bahubali Boraganve

Smt Suhasini W/O Bahubali Boraganve Vs Shri Hanumanth S/O Parshuram Hotakar

Smt. Bibi Mariam Urf Yasmeen Banu Vs the Chairman

The State of Karnataka, Vs Mukand Limited

The State of Karnataka, Vs M/S Xindia Steels Ltd.

M/S.Zion Impex Vs Smt.Chitradevi Baldota