Partly allowed

Shamala Hari v. a v Sudarshan

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2023MFA/2429/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by vehicle owner against Motor Accidents Tribunal award granting Rs.3.82 lakh compensation for death. High Court allowed appeal in part, reducing interest from 9% to 6% per annum, upholding tribunal's liability findings while correcting the interest component.

What did the court decide?

Interest rate on compensation awarded to deceased's family reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per annum.

Shamala Hari Vs a v Sudarshan — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42352 MFA No. 2429 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

M.F.A. NO. 2429 OF 2017 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHAMALA HARI

¶9

W/O HARI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO. 25/1, 2^ND CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, AYYAPPA TEMPLE BLOCK, VIVEKNAGAR, AUSTIN TOWN, BANGALORE - 57.

¶10

… APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

A V SUDARSHAN

¶14

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

S/O SATHYANARAYANA RAO, 52 YEARS,

¶16

NO. 27, CHINMAYI, MUNIREDDY LAYOUT, DODDAKALLASANDRA, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 62.

¶17

A. S. SULOCHANA W/O C.S.RAMAKRISHNA, 55 YEARS, NO.27, 1^ST FLOOR, CHINMAYAI, MUNIREDDY LAYOUT,

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:42352 MFA No. 2429 of 2017

¶19

DODDAKALLASANDRA, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 62.

¶20

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COM LTD., UNNATI ARCADES, 5/111 & 6/112, 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST BLOCK, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 010 REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. PUSHPA NAGASAMPIGE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI H.C. BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED21.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3434/15 ON THE FILE OF THE 13^TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,82,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This is an appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.3434/2015 dated 21.07.2016 on the file of XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge & MACT, Bengaluru.

¶27

The claim petition is filed seeking compensation

¶28

for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42352 MFA No. 2429 of 2017

¶30

deceased in the accident, wherein the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.3,82,000/-. The case of the claimant is that the deceased was aged 82 years and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- to 15,000/- per month and he was contributing his entire earning to the claimants. As there is no evidence, the court considering the income at Rs.5,000/- and deducting 1/3^rd of it, under the head of loss of dependency had granted an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Towards of loss of love & affection and estate granted an amount of Rs.20,000/-, towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses granted an amount of Rs.40,000/- and for Medical Bills granted an amount of Rs.1,22,000/-. When it comes to the liability, as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the driving license, the court has exonerated the insurance company from liability and held that the owner of offending vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensation.

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42352 MFA No. 2429 of 2017

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle submits that the driver of the vehicle is absconding as such he is not able to produce the driving license. It is submitted that even if there is no driving license, still the principle of pay and recovery will apply. It is submitted that when it is the case of the claimants that they are taking case of the deceased, the question of loss of dependency would not arise. It is submitted without considering all these aspects, the compensation was granted. It is submitted that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased which was not considered by the Court. Learned counsel submits that compensation that was granted was without any basis and insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that the court below had granted 9% interest which is exorbitant. As far as the interest aspect is concerned, it shall be reduced to 6%.

¶33

4. Learned counsel for the insurance company

¶34

submits that when there is no driving license, the court

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42352 MFA No. 2429 of 2017

¶36

had rightly exonerated the insurance company from the liability. It is submitted that in an appeal of owner he

¶37

cannot ask for pay and recover.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel on either

¶39

side, perused the entire material on record. First with regard to the accident, the court below considering the evidence on record had rightly come to the conclusion that

¶40

the rider of the offending vehicle was negligent and because of the negligence, the accident had taken place. The owner of the offending vehicle submits that there is contributory negligence, in that regard, no evidence was adduced before the court below and without adducing any evidence, it is not open for the owner of the vehicle to take such a stand. When it comes to the compensation, even if they are not entitled for loss of dependency, definitely they are entitled for loss of estate. If the same is calculated that way, under the other conventional heads also, the compensation would be more than what has been

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:42352 MFA No. 2429 of 2017

¶42

granted by the court below. Hence, in view of the same,

¶43

this court is not inclined to go into the said aspect.

¶44

Accordingly, the appeal of the owner of the

¶45

vehicle is Allowed-in-part by reducing the interest from

¶46

9% to 6%.

¶47

(a) The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified copy of the order passed by this court forthwith without any delay.

¶48

(b) No Costs.

¶49

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶50

stand closed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 123

Shamala Hari v. a v Sudarshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamala Hari v. a v Sudarshan

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

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sri K v Ramanajanappa

Mr Jayarama Shetty Vs Smt Kumudha Shetty

Binay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Vs K Umapathi

Sri Pradeep G B Vs Byregowda

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mr B Malathesha

Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Mr. C. R. Yogesh