Allowed

Sri. Rajappa v. Administrator

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2024MFA/2997/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants appealed against meager compensation for death of an ambulance technician in a collision between an 108 ambulance and a parked tractor-trailer. The court enhanced compensation to Rs.23,11,392/- using revised salary and multiplier 17, and directed the ambulance insurer to pay the entire amount with liberty to recover 50% from the tractor-trailer owners whose policy was not in force.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.9,12,012/- to Rs.23,11,392/- with interest at 6% p.a.; insurer R3 to deposit entire amount and recover 50% from respondents 4 to 6.

Sri. Rajappa Vs Administrator — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10135 MFA No. 2997 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2997 OF 2020 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. RAJAPPA

¶9

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1. PUTTASWAMY S/O LATE RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O GUNDERI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526.

¶10

JAYAPPA

¶11

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

S/O LATE RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O GUNDERI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526.

¶13

SRINIVASA

¶14

S/O LATE RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O GUNDERI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526.

¶15

SMT ONKARAMMA

¶16

W/O LATE RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O GUNDERI VILLAGE,

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:10135 MFA No. 2997 of 2020

¶18

¶19

HOLALKERE TALUK,

¶20

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526.

¶21

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SIDDESWARA N K., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

ADMINISTRATOR, DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER, OWNER OF 108 AMBULANCE BEARING REG.NO.KA-07/G-0450, DISTRICT GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, SHIMOGGA-577 201.

¶24

ADMINISTRATOR, KARNATAKA 108 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SERVICE, S T D C HOUSING BOARD COLONY, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA ENTRANCE, OPP. GOVT. UNION MEDICAL COLLEGE, G M S COMPOUND, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 079. (C/O G V K EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE)

¶25

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, DAVANAGERE-577 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

¶26

H R UMESH ARADHYA, S/O RUDRA ARADHYA, MAJOR,

¶27

OWNER OF TRACTOR - TRAILER BEARING REG NO.KA-14/T-9505 AND 6363, R/O THOPPENAGATTA VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK,

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10135 MFA No. 2997 of 2020

¶29

SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

¶30

BANGARAPPA, S/O M NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, PRESENT OWNER OF TRACTOR - TRAILER BEARING REG. NO.KA-14/T-9505 AND 6363, R/O YADEHALLI VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577 227.

¶31

C B K ANVERI, A/C C S A NAGARAMMA, W/O SURESH, MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/O YADEHALLI VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577 227.

¶32

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. DAVANAGERE-577 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R7; VIDE ORDER DATED 30.01.2024, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH; R5 SERVED;)

¶35

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 27.11.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.74/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AND MACT, HOLALKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:10135 MFA No. 2997 of 2020

¶38

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

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 27.11.2018 passed by Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Holalkere (for short ‘the tribunal’) in MVC.No.74/2015. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the tribunal. Hence, the appellants seek enhancement of compensation.

¶41

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal.

¶42

3. Brief facts of the case are as under;

¶43

That on 24.01.2014 at about 9.00 p.m. one Shanthakumar S/o Rajappa was travelling in an 108 Ambulance bearing registration No.KA-07/G-0450 from Kumsi village towards Shimoga along with driver Babusab. In the said Ambulance reached near Malligenahalli village, on SagaraShimoga road, the driver of the said vehicle i.e., Ambulance drove vehicle in a rash and negligence manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations and dashed on the hind side of the Tractor-Trailer bearing registration No.KA-14/T-

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10135 MFA No. 2997 of 2020

¶45

9505 and KA-14/T-6363 which was parked on the side of the road without indicating any signal light or any other indication for having stopped the vehicle. Due to the impact of accident the said Shanthakumar who was inmate in the Ambulance sustained grievous injuries towards head and other parts of the body, so also, the driver. The deceased Shanthakumar was shifted immediately to Nanjappa Hospital, Shimoga, where he succumbed to the injuries despite the treatment.

¶46

3.1. Prior to the accident, claimant was hale and healthy

¶47

and was working as a “Technician” in 108 Ambulance vehicle at Shimoga District Government Meggan Hospital and was earning about Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to the sudden unfortunate death of deceased Shanthakumar, the unfortunate parents filed claim petition seeking compensation against the respondent.

¶48

3.2. On service of notice, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6 did

¶49

not appeared before the tribunal and was placed ex-parte. Respondent Nos.3 and 7 filed statement of objections along with respondent Nos.4 and 5. It was pleaded by the contesting respondent that the claim petition is not maintainable, denied

¶50

the entire claim made by the claimants including age, avocation, income and the negligence attributed against the

¶51

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10135 MFA No. 2997 of 2020

¶52

Tractor-Trailer, so also, against the Ambulance and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶53

3.3. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 pleaded that respondent No.4 has stated that he is not the owner of the Tractor bearing registration No.KA-14/T-9505 and he is the owner of the Trailer bearing registration No.KA-14/T-6363 and he has sold in favour of respondent No.5 long back. Whereas respondent No.5 pleaded that he has insured his vehicle with respondent No.7 which covers all type of risks as the policy was in force as on date of occurrence of accident and the driver had valid and effective driving license. Respondent No.7 being the insurer will have to indemnify respondent No.5. On this basis respondents sought for dismissal of claim petition.

¶54

3.4. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.

¶55

3.5. In order to substantiate the issues and to establish

¶56

the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and another one as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P19. On the other hand, respondents got examined as RW.1 to RW.3 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 to R6.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:10135 MFA No. 2997 of 2020

¶59

3.6. On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,12,012/- with interest @ 6% p.a. to the claimants and held respondent Nos.1 to 3 owners of the 108 Ambulance, to be jointly and severally liable to pay 50% of the compensation in view of subsistence of policy and directed respondent No.3 – Insurance Company to deposit the compensation with interest at 6% per annum within 60 days. Further, the tribunal directed respondent Nos.4 to 6 being the owners of the Tractor – Trailer to be jointly and severally liable to pay the remaining 50% of the compensation amount with interest at 6% within 60 days. Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as against the respondent No.7 – Insurance Company of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

¶60

3.7. Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award.

¶61

The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants-claimants is that, the tribunal has committed an error in awarding meagre compensation, which calls for

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:10135 MFA No. 2997 of 2020

¶63

interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶64

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company submits that the tribunal has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Therefore, on these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶65

Having heard learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsel for the Insurance Company – respondent Nos.3 and 7, perused the impugned judgment and award and the original records summoned from the tribunal. On careful perusal of records i.e., Exs.P1 to P12 are the documents relied by the claimants, police records depict filing of FIR and charge sheet laid against the drivers of both the vehicles i.e., 108 Ambulance and Tractor-Trailer. The Tractor-Trailer against which charge sheet has filed No.KA-14/T-9505 and KA-14/T-6363 apparently it is seen by filing of the criminal case and the police records, it is seen that the negligence is attributed equally as against the driver of the Ambulance and drivers of the TractorTrailer.

¶66

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:10135 MFA No. 2997 of 2020

¶67

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income and the multiplier that requires to be adopted for awarding compensation. The age of the deceased as on the date of occurrence of accident is 27 years. The appropriate multiplier would be ‘17’ which is correctly taken by the tribunal. Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,154/- by relying on Ex.P8, but has ignored Ex.P10 which is a revised salary details of the deceased as on 23.09.2013 which shows that he was drawing a revised salary of Rs.10,697/-which is quite prior to the date of occurrence of the accident i.e., 24.01.2014. Hence, in my opinion the tribunal has committed an error in accepting Ex.P8, but not accepting Ex.P10 and no reasoning is found in the impugned judgment as to why Ex.P10 is not relied by the tribunal. Hence, income in the present case is taken as Rs.10,697/- as against Rs.6,154/-.

¶68

The claimants would be entitled to future prospects of 50% as addition to the income, in view of the fact that deceased was aged less than 40 years. Therefore, the loss of dependency in the present case would be Rs.16,046/(Rs.10,697/- + 50%). Tribunal has deducted 1/3^rd towards the personal and living expenses. Same is retained. In view of the

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:10135 MFA No. 2997 of 2020

¶71

above, the loss of dependency for the present case would be Rs.21,82,392/- (Rs.16,046/- x 1/3 = Rs.10,698/- x 12 x 17) as against Rs.8,37,012/-.

¶72

Towards love and affection Rs.25,000/- is awarded by the tribunal. Towards loss of consortium another Rs.25,000/- is awarded by the tribunal. It is seen that as on date of disposal of the main petition, there are two claimants i.e., the parents of deceased. So each would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- per head , in all Rs.80,000/-(Rs.40,000 x 2) is awarded. Awarding escalation of 20% towards two block period for three years Rs.16,000/- (Rs.80,000/- + 20%)is added to this amount. In all Rs.96,000/- is awarded under this head.

¶73

Towards loss of estate and towards transportation of dead body tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-. It is requires to be modified. This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- under this head with escalation of 10% is added which comes to Rs.33,000/- ( Rs.30,000/- + 10%)

¶74

In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.23,11,392/- as against Rs.9,12,012/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:10135 MFA No. 2997 of 2020

¶77

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	Rs.21,82,392-00
Loss of consortium	Rs.96,000-00
(+ 20% escalation)
Loss of estate and	Rs.33,000-00
transportation of dead body, funeral expenses.
(+ 10% escalation)
TOTAL	Rs. 23,11,392-00

¶78

Now coming to the question of the liability and the negligence, it is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was an inmate in the Ambulance and employee of respondent No.2. He has nothing to do with the driver of the vehicle and negligence cannot be attributed against the driver of the Ambulance. Howsoever, two vehicles are involved, the Insurance Company – respondent No.3 would have to be directed to pay the compensation and recover the same from the respondent Nos.4 to 6. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellants that there is being involvement of two vehicles i.e., 108 Ambulance

¶79

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:10135 MFA No. 2997 of 2020

¶80

and Tractor-Trailer and the Ambulance being insured with respondent No.3 and having been fastened with 50% contributory negligence is against the said Ambulance, the remaining 50% against respondent Nos.4 to 6. It is the duty of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from respondent Nos.4 to 6. The finding of the tribunal with regard to dismissal of the claim petition as against respondent No.7 is sustained as Ex.R2 depicts that the policy was not in force as on the date of occurrence of accident. Therefore, the owners of Tractor-Trailer would be liable to pay the compensation.

¶81

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶82

ORDER

¶83

i) The appeal is allowed ;

¶84

ii) The judgment and award dated 27.11.2018 passed in MVC.No.74/2015 by Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Holalkere, is modified;

¶85

iii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.23,11,392/- as against RS.9,12,012/-.

¶86

iv) The liability is of 50:50 ratio is sustained as against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent Nos.4 to 6. The policy being in force with regard to

¶87

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:10135 MFA No. 2997 of 2020

¶88

respondent Nos.1 and 2 with respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation to the appellants-claimants and would be at liberty to recover the remaining 50% of the compensation from respondent Nos.4 to 6.

¶89

v) As there is a composite negligence involved for two vehicles and appellants-claimants is the third party he is not concerned to these two vehicles. Hence, appellants -claimants can make its claim against one of the vehicle who is liable to pay the compensation and recover from the other. Accordingly it is ordered that the respondent No.3 shall deposit entire compensation and recover 50% of the compensation from respondent No.4 and 6.

¶90

vi) The enhanced compensation shall be paid with interest at the rate of 6% p.a, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶91

vii) The apportionment and release of the amount awarded by the tribunal is undisturbed.

¶92

viii) In view of the fact that the first claimant's father of deceased namely Rajappa, died after the impugned judgment and prior to the filing of the appeal, the LR's of the first claimant are brought on record, however, would not be entitled to the compensation. The proportionate share would have to be altered in following manner. The amount

¶93

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:10135 MFA No. 2997 of 2020

¶94

shall be released in favour of appellant No.4/claimant No.2, 40% of the amount has been ordered to be deposited in the form of a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank by the tribunal is retained. The remaining 60% amount shall be released in favour of appellant No.4/claimant No.2.

¶95

ix) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact.

¶96

Sd/JUDGE

¶97

AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65

Sri. Rajappa v. Administrator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Rajappa v. Administrator

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

Smt N Suguna Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt. Sunitha Vs Smt. Shivamma

Sri Bhaskar P Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt.Sumathi Poojarthi Vs Sri T H Shivashankar

Sri Jayanna T Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd.

The Managing Director Vs Smt. Kamalabai