Allowed

Laxmi W/O Sunil Tagore v. Kadappa Babu Dua

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2024MFA/20895/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife and son of a motorcyclist who died after his bike dashed against a parked tractor-trailer appealed dismissal of their Section 163A MV Act claim. The High Court held the deceased was a third party against the tractor's owner and insurer, computed compensation using multiplier 16 per Sarla Verma, allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal award and granted Rs.3,91,072 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; Tribunal judgment set aside; claimants awarded Rs.3,91,072 with 6% p.a. interest from date of petition, payable by insurer within six weeks, split 50% each between claimants.

Laxmi W/O Sunil Tagore Vs Kadappa Babu Dua — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:1448 MFA No. 20895 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20895 OF 2013 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. LAXMI W/O. SUNIL TAGORE, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MADIHALLI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

KUMAR SANKET S/O. SUNIL TAGARE, AGE: 4 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN PETITIONER NO.1

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Date: 2024.02.01 15:36:55 +0530

¶15

SHRI. KADAPPA BABU DUGA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTABAGI, TAL: HUKKERI DIST: BELAGAVI. OWNER OF TRACTOR NO. AP-28/AB-6670, TRAILER NO. KA-23/T-1829, MXI-2691.

¶16

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI. INSURER OF TRACTOR NO. AP-28/AB-6670, TRAILER NO. KA-23/T-1829, MXI-2697 POLICY NO.151201-31/08/02/00001232 VALIDITY FROM 20/05/2008 TO 19/05/2009, POLICY ISSUED BY BR. OFFICE, LAXMIPURI, KOLHAPUR.)

¶17

- 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:1448 MFA No. 20895 of 2013

¶18

SHRI. BHUPAL MALLAPPA TAGARE, AGE: 54 YERS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PRABHUWADI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶19

SMT. VIMALA BHUPAL TAGARE, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKODI, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶20

SMT. NEELAM W/O. SUNIL TAGARE, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O.CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶21

KUMAR SUMIT S/O. SUNIL TAGARE, AGE: 5 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.5.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1, R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED; R5 HELD SUFFICIENT; R6 IS MINOR REP. BY R5)

¶24

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO. 975/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK AND MEMBER MACT, HUKKERI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:1448 MFA No. 20895 of 2013

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Heard Shri. Krishna Kumar representing Shri. Sangram S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for appellants and Shri. M. K. Soudagar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶29

Unsuccessful claimant in MVC No.975/2009 has preferred the present appeal challenging the validity of judgment and award passed in MVC No.975/2009 dated 06.11.2012 on the file of Fast Track and MACT, Hukkeri.

¶30

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

¶31

3.1. Claimants being the wife and son of deceased Suni Tagare, filed a claim petition under Section 163A the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’), for awarding suitable compensation as the said Sunil Tagare died accidental death on 04.01.2009 being the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-23/S-4374 which dashed against the Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.AP-28/AB-6670, KA-23/T-1829 and MXI 2697 (for short ‘T.T. Unit’).

¶32

3.2. Since the rider of the motor cycle lost his life, the owner and Insurance Company of T.T. Unit, he should be

¶33

- 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:1448 MFA No. 20895 of 2013

¶34

treated as third party. The said aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the Tribunal and dismissed the claim petition.

¶35

Being aggrieved by the same, claimants are in

¶36

appeal.

¶37

Learned counsel for appellants vehemently

¶38

contended that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the claim petition not construed the deceased as a third party as against the owner and insurer of T.T. Unit which has been parked on the road and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶39

Per contra , Shri. M. K. Soudagar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the impugned judgment is passed by appreciating the principles of law that was governing as on the date of passing award and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶40

In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this

¶41

Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶42

On such perusal of material on record, there is no dispute that the rider of the motor cycle lost his life by dashing against the parked T.T. Unit.

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:1448 MFA No. 20895 of 2013

¶44

Insofar as the owner and the insurer of T.T. Unit are concerned, the deceased is to be construed as third party. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim petition as claim petition is filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act, where the question of negligence is of no significance.

¶45

Therefore, appellants have made out a case for allowing the claim petition. Since the claim petition is filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act, income that is to be taken for the purpose of computation is Rs.3,250/- having regard to the fact that the deceased is a married person having a child, 1/3^rd of the income is to be deducted. Deceased being aged 33 years old, proper multiplier as per Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 , has been 16. Therefore, claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,91,072/- as

¶46

under;

¶47

1	Income Rs.3,250/- Rs.3250-1083 (1/3^rdof Rs.3,250/- is Rs.1,083.33/-) = Rs.2,167/- X16X12 =34,672/-	Rs.3,86,572/-
2	Conventional head	Rs.4,500/-
	Total	Rs.3,91,072/-

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC-D:1448 MFA No. 20895 of 2013

¶50

Hence, the following order is passed:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) Appeal is allowed.

¶53

(ii) Impugned judgment and award passed in

¶54

MVC No.975/2009 dated 06.11.2012 on the file of

¶55

Fast Track and MACT, Hukkeri, is hereby set aside.

¶56

(iii) Claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,91,072/- as compensation with interest as the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶57

(iv) Insurance Company is granted six weeks

¶58

time to deposit the balance compensation amount.

¶59

(v) The claimants are entitled 50% each of

¶60

the adjudged compensation.

¶61

(vi) Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SMM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Laxmi W/O Sunil Tagore v. Kadappa Babu Dua

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi W/O Sunil Tagore v. Kadappa Babu Dua

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. Shivaputra Rudrappa Ujjankoppa Vs Karnataka Niravari Nigam Limited

Smt. Chandrabhagi Saraswati Devali Died by Lrs Sri Ullas Chandrabhaga Yani Vs the Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Naveen S/O Henry Dani Vs Smt. Hillee W/O Naveen Dani

The Divisional Manager, Vs Shri. Shivappa Ningappa Yandigeri

The Branch Manager, Vs Smt. Nazarin W/O. Sayyad Rafiq Sayyad

Parashuram S/O Late Sunkappa, Vs Venkaramudu S/O Anjaneyulu