Partly allowed

The Manager, v. Smt.Sujathamma @ C. Sujatha

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2024MFA/100137/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court handled three appeals and a cross-objection regarding motor accident compensation. The court reduced the pillion rider's contributory negligence from 50% to 25%, enhanced the compensation quantum by applying dependency income principles, and directed the lorry insurer to pay 75% of the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Contributory negligence reduced to 25%; compensation enhanced to Rs. 7,87,688/-; Lorry insurer directed to pay 75% with interest; National Insurance Company to receive its 25% share.

The Manager, Vs Smt.Sujathamma @ C. Sujatha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2761 MFA No. 103285 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100137 of 2017, MFA.CROB No. 100102 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103285 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100137 OF 2017

¶10

MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100102 OF 2018

¶11

IN M.F. A. NO.103285 OF 2018

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SMT. SUJATHAMMA @ C. SUJATHA W/O. LATE PANDURANGA SHETTY, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE-WIFE, R/O. CHILAKANAHATTI VILLAGE IN HOSPET TALUKA IN BALLARI DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MILLERPET, BALLARI-583101.

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI. GURUKUMAR V.A., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
SAROJA HANGARAKI
HANGARAKI Date:
2024.02.19
16:02:34
+0530

¶18

MANGILAL DANGI S/O. KAMLAJI AGE. MAJOR, OCC. DRIVER, R/O.DHAMANIYA, THE VALLABHA NAGAR, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN STATE-313601.

¶19

M/S. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BY ITS MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, AT UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-313001.

¶20

THE MANAGER, M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PARVATHI NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BALLARI-583101.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SUBHAS J.BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2761 MFA No. 103285 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100137 of 2017, MFA.CROB No. 100102 of 2018

¶25

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.739/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

IN M.F. A. NO.100137 OF 2017

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

THE MANAGER, M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PARVATHI NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, BALLARI, REPRESENTED ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO,LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE 2^ND FLOOR ARIHANT PLAZA, KESUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR HUBBALLI. (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

¶29

…APPELLANT

¶30

AND:

¶31

SMT. SUJATHAMMA @ C. SUJATHA W/O. LATE PANDURANGA SHETTY, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE-WIFE, R/O. CHILAKANAHATTI VILLAGE IN HOSPET TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MILLERPET, BALLARI-583217.

¶32

LAKSHMESHA S/O. LATE PANDURANGA SHETTY, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. CHILAKANAHATTI VILLAGE IN HOSPET TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MILLERPET, BALLARI-583217.

¶33

SHRI. MANGILAL DANGI S/O. KAMLAJI AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, (TRANSPORT) DRIVER CUM OWNER R/O. DHAMANIYA, THE VALLABHA NAGAR, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN STATE-302001.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2761 MFA No. 103285 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100137 of 2017, MFA.CROB No.

¶36

100102 of 2018

¶37

M/S. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BY ITS MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE,

¶38

AT UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302001.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUKUMAR V.A., ADVOCATE FOR R1-R2; NOTICE TO R3-R4 DISPENSED WITH)

¶40

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.740/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, BALLARI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 5,56,088/- WITH INTEREST AT 7% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.

¶41

IN MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100102 OF 2018

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

SMT. SUJATHAMMA @ C. SUJATHA W/O. LATE PANDURANGA SHETTY, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. CHILAKANAHATTI VILLAGE IN HOSPET TALUKA IN BALLARI DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MILLERPET, BALLARI-583101.

¶44

LAKSHMESHA S/O. LATE PANDURANGA SHETTY, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. CHILAKANAHATTI VILLAGE IN HOSPET TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MILLERPET, BALLARI-583101.

¶45

…CROSS OBJECTORS

¶46

(BY SRI. GURUKUMAR V.A., ADVOCATE)

¶47

AND:

¶48

MANGILAL DANGI S/O. KAMLAJI AGE. MAJOR, OCC. DRIVER, R/O.DHAMANIYA, THE VALLABHA NAGAR, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN STATE-313601.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2761 MFA No. 103285 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100137 of 2017, MFA.CROB No.

¶51

100102 of 2018

¶52

M/S. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BY ITS MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE,

¶53

AT UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-313001.

¶54

THE MANAGER, M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PARVATHI NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BALLARI-583103.

¶55

…RESPONDENTS

¶56

(BY SRI. SUBHAS J.BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶57

THIS MFA CROB IN MFA No.100137/2017 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC No.740/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-XII, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶58

THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS AND MFA CROB, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶59

JUDGMENT

¶60

Heard Sri.Gurukumar V.A., learned counsel for the

¶61

appellants – claimants and Sri.Subhas J Baddi,

¶62

Sri.M.K.Soudagar, learned counsels for the respondents.

¶63

These three appeals arise out of judgment and

¶64

award passed in MVC No.739/2013 and MVC No.740/2013 on the file of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

¶65

Ballari dated 21.09.2016.

¶66

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2761 MFA No. 103285 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100137 of 2017, MFA.CROB No. 100102 of 2018

¶68

Admitted facts of the case are as under:

¶69

3.1 A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act in respect of a road traffic accident occurred on 19.04.2013. It is contended that the claimant – Sujathamma being the pillion rider was proceeding with her husband (rider) and son on motorcycle bearing No.KA-35/X-5241. While they were proceeding from Gangavathi towards Chilakanahatti village, dashed to a lorry bearing No.RJ-24/GA-2163 on Koppal-Hospet National Highway-13 road.

¶70

3.2 Admittedly, the said lorry was parked on National Highway. The rider of motorcycle lost his life. Whereas, his wife being pillion rider got injured. Thus, claim petitions came to be laid by the claimants.

¶71

Claim petitions, on contest, came to be allowed

¶72

in a sum of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.5,56,088/- for the injured and dependants of deceased respectively.

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2761 MFA No. 103285 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100137 of 2017, MFA.CROB No. 100102 of 2018

¶74

¶75

Further, the Tribunal attributed 50%

¶76

contributory negligence to the rider of motorcycle and 50% to the parked lorry taking note of the fact that two charge sheets came to be filed by the police, of which abated charge sheet was insofar as rider of motorcycle is concerned and another against driver of lorry bearing No.RJ-24/GA-2163 which was parked on the road.

¶77

Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of

¶78

compensation and attributing 50% contributory negligence to the rider of motorcycle, the claimants are in appeals.

¶79

Sri.Gurukumar V.A., learned counsel for the appellants – claimants in both the appeals reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandums, sought for suitable enhancement and also reduction of contributory negligence to the rider of motorcycle as the lorry could not have been parked on the National Highway.

¶80

¶81

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2761 MFA No. 103285 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100137 of 2017, MFA.CROB No. 100102 of 2018

¶82

Per contra, Sri.Subhas J Baddi, learned counsel

¶83

representing Insurance Company of lorry bearing No.RJ24/GA-2163 supported the impugned judgment.

¶84

Sri.M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel for the the insurer of motorcycle contended that based on the premium paid for personal accident cover, the National Insurance Company has already satisfied maximum limit in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in death case and for the injuries sustained by the pillion rider to the extent of 50% of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.15,000/and sought for passing suitable orders.

¶85

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶86

On such perusal of material on record, the accidental death of rider of motorcycle namely Panduranga Shetty is not in dispute. He was the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-35/X-5241 and accident occurred on account of the fact that lorry bearing No.RJ-24/GA-2163

¶87

¶88

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2761 MFA No. 103285 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100137 of 2017, MFA.CROB No. 100102 of 2018

¶89

was parked on the National Highway without sufficient indications to caution other drivers of vehicles.

¶90

Police after thorough investigation, filed charge sheet against the rider of motorcycle and lorry of driver. Admittedly, the spot where the accident took place is National Highway-13.

¶91

Existing rules and regulations would make it clear that no vehicle can be parked other than specified parking area in a National Highway. Therefore, attributing contributory negligence to the extent of 50% on the rider of motorcycle is incorrect.

¶92

However, since the accident has occurred at 8.30 p.m., rider of motorcycle should have taken necessary precaution in anticipating some parked vehicle and ridden motorcycle with necessary care and caution. Therefore, attributing contributory negligence to the extent of 25% to the rider of motorcycle would meet ends of justice.

¶93

¶94

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2761 MFA No. 103285 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100137 of 2017, MFA.CROB No. 100102 of 2018

¶95

Accordingly, contributory negligence factor is to

¶96

be adjudged as 25% to the rider of motorcycle and 75% to the driver of lorry.

¶97

The next question to be considered in these appeals is with regard to adequacy of compensation awarded in both the claim petitions.

¶98

Admittedly, pillion rider being the wife of rider, sustained injuries. Doctor is not examined. Taking note of the injuries sustained by her, Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- globally, which in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper.

¶99

Since the compensation amount is already satisfied by the National Insurance Company who is insured of motorcycle in question, he is entitled to receive Rs.7,500/- from the Insurance Company of lorry i.e. SBI General Insurance Company in respect of satisfaction of claim of claimant in MVC No.739/2013 representing 25% contributory negligence.

¶100

10 -

¶101

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2761 MFA No. 103285 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100137 of 2017, MFA.CROB No. 100102 of 2018

¶102

Further, insofar claim in MVC No.740/2013 is concerned, the Tribunal has not taken proper income while assessing quantum of compensation on loss of dependency.

¶103

For the accidental death of the year 2013, notional income is to be taken in a sum of Rs.7,000/-. Deceased being aged 55 years, he is entitled to 10% addition as per the principles of law enunciated in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157.

¶104

Further, claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/each towards filial affection. On conventional heads, the claimants are entitled for Rs.30,000/-.

¶105

Accordingly, a case is made out for enhancing the quantum of compensation and also reducing contributory negligence:

¶106

The quantum of compensation is reassessed as under:

¶107

11 -

¶108

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2761 MFA No. 103285 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100137 of 2017, MFA.CROB No. 100102 of 2018

¶109

Loss of dependency Rs.6,77,688/-
[Rs.7,000 (income) + 10%
(addition) - 1/3 rd
(deduction)x 12 (months) x
11 (multiplier)
Loss of consortium Rs.80,000/-
(Rs.40,000 x 2)
Conventional heads Rs.30,000/-
Total Rs.7,87,688/-

¶110

In view of the foregoing discussion, following

¶111

order is passed:

¶112

ORDER

¶113

(i) Appeal filed by claimant in MFA No.103285/2018 is allowed in part.

¶114

(ii) Appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA No.100137/2017 is allowed in part.

¶115

(iii) Appellant - Insurance Company is entitled to receive 25% of compensation from SBI General

¶116

Insurance Company in respect of insured in a sum of Rs.7,500/-.

¶117

12 -

¶118

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2761 MFA No. 103285 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100137 of 2017, MFA.CROB No. 100102 of 2018

¶119

(iv) Cross-objection filed by the cross-objectors in

¶120

MFA Crob.No.100102/2018 is allowed in part.

¶121

(v) As against a sum of Rs.5,56,088/- awarded by the Tribunal, the cross-objectors are entitled to Rs.7,87,688/-.

¶122

(vi) 75% of the said amount is payable by SBI General Insurance Company with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶123

(vii) Balance 25% is attributable to the rider of the motorcycle and since personal accident coverage has already been satisfied to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-, claimants are not entitled to remaining amount representing 25%.

¶124

(viii) Contributory negligence attributed to the rider of motorcycle is reduced from 50% to 25%.

¶125

13 -

¶126

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2761 MFA No. 103285 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 100137 of 2017, MFA.CROB No. 100102 of 2018

¶127

(ix) Consequently, SBI General Insurance Company who is insurer of lorry is directed to pay 25% of contributory negligence to the National Insurance Company who has already satisfied 50% of compensation to the pillion rider.

¶128

(x) Amount in deposit in MFA No.100137/2017 is ordered to be returned to the Insurance Company under due identification.

¶129

(xi) SBI General Insurance Company being the insurer of lorry is given four weeks time to deposit 75% of compensation.

¶130

Sd/JUDGE

¶131

¶132

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17

The Manager, v. Smt.Sujathamma @ C. Sujatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager, v. Smt.Sujathamma @ C. Sujatha

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

Dilip Ishwara Salokhe @ Salunke Vs Vasant S/O. Shripati Jagatap

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs M. Ramelsh @ Ramesh S/O Late M Arjunappa

Nagappa S/O Lokanagouda Police Patil Vs Parashuram Rajaram Patil

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shri Chidanand S/O Shankar Nemagoudar

Mariyappa S/O Basappa Tidi Vs Madhu @ Mudukappa S/O Basappa

Shri. Shirmant B Gudasalmani, Vs the United Basel Mission Church in India