Dismissed

The Regional Manager v. Smt Susheelamma @ Susheela

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2023MFA/7360/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Miscellaneous First Appeal challenges the compensation quantum awarded in a motor accident death case. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the multiplier calculation based on the deceased's age and noting the non-joinder of the driver was not fatal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against the minority decision of the Tribunal dismissing the minority appeal was dismissed.

The Regional Manager Vs Smt Susheelamma @ Susheela — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:21422 MFA No. 7360 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7360 OF 2014 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE REGIONAL MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 2^ND FLOOR, DARE HOUSE, 2 NSC BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 001 BY THE CLAIMS MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, UNIT NO.04, NINTH FLOOR, (LEVEL-06) "GOLDEN HEIGHTS" COMPLEX, 59^TH "C" CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, RAJAJINAGAR, 4^TH "M" BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 010 (BY SRI: O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA @ SUSHEELA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, WIFE OF SIDDAPPA,

¶13

SRI SIDDAPPA AGE: 52 YEARS, S/O SIDDAPPA @ KARIYAPPA,

¶14

NAGARAJ, AGED: 20 YEARS, S/O SIDDAPPA,

¶15

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 48, 8^TH CROSS, RAJESHWARINAGAR, LAGGERE, BENGALURU - 560 058. AND ALSO AT NO. 189,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:21422 MFA No. 7360 of 2014

¶18

LAGGERE, BENGALURU NORTH, BANGALORE - 560 058.

¶19

SHRI BUDENSAB, MAJOR, S/O PEERU SAB, NO.32, SADENAHALLI VILLAGE, GOWDAGERE POST, MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI, CHICKABALLAPURA DIST - 561 211.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI: KUMARA K.G., FOR

¶22

SRI: B.M. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R3. R4 IS SERVED).

¶23

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.7678/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.16,60,000/- WITH INTEREST @6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF THE CLAIM PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶24

THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 01.08.2014 passed in MVC.No.7678/2012 by the learned

¶27

XII Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, challenging the quantum of compensation.

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:21422 MFA No. 7360 of 2014

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that, on 02.06.2012

¶30

at about 5.15 p.m., the deceased- Prathap was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing No.KA-02-HH-7143 from East to West at Kanteerava Studio Main Road by following the traffic rules slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road, at that time, all of a sudden the driver of the offending lorry bearing No.KA-40-7780 has driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result, he was fell down and left side rear wheel of the lorry ran over the head of the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation.

¶31

Heard the arguments on both sides and perused

¶32

the records.

¶33

The Tribunal has awarded compensation under 'loss of dependency' taking the multiplier according to the

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:21422 MFA No. 7360 of 2014

¶35

age of the deceased. It is the ground raised by the appellant/Insurance Company that the multiplier ought to have been taken according to the age of the claimant No.1- mother of the deceased. Further, it has also raised a ground that the driver has not been made as party in the proceedings.

¶36

As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma & Others. Vs.

¶37

Delhi Transport Corpn And Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , the multiplier applicable in the case of death is to be assessed according to the age of the deceased, but not according to the age of the parents of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in assessing the multiplier taking the age of the deceased. Therefore, on this ground, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Insofar as not making the driver as a party in

¶39

the proceedings, the driver is a proper party, but not

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:21422 MFA No. 7360 of 2014

¶41

necessary party. The owner of the offending vehicle is made as party who is necessary party. Therefore, as per Order I Rule 9 of CPC, the owner of the offending vehicle is made as party. Therefore, even though the driver may be proper party, but not making the driver as party does not affect core of the case. A 'necessary party' is one without whom, no order can be made effectively, whereas a 'proper party' is one in whose absence, an effective order can be made on the question involved in the proceeding. Therefore, owner is necessary party who is made as party in the claim proceedings. Therefore, just because driver is not made as party as he is the only proper party, in the absence of whom, effective adjudication cannot be done, such contention cannot be accepted. Therefore, non-making of proper party is not fatal to the claim proceedings. Hence, on this ground also, appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

Hence I pass the following;

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:21422 MFA No. 7360 of 2014

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. Appeal is dismissed.

¶46

ii. Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along with copy of this order to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶47

iii. Draw award accordingly.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

The Regional Manager v. Smt Susheelamma @ Susheela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Regional Manager v. Smt Susheelamma @ Susheela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S National Insurance Company Limited Vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri. Kumar

Executive Engineer (Electrical) Vs Siddegowda @Ramu

Smt. Saraswathamma Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri E Kumar Vs Smt Munilakshmamma

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri R Neetiraj