Partly allowed

Sri Mudlagiriyappa @ Mudalappa v. Sri Kumaraswamy

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2024MFA/4186/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross-appeals over motor accident compensation for a deceased aged 25. Court set aside liability on the seller since B-register extract showed the vehicle registered to Lokesh, directed insurer to pay and recover from Lokesh despite permit violation, and enhanced compensation using notional income of Rs.8,500 with 40% future prospects.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.14,66,700 with 6% interest; Kumaraswamy's liability set aside and Rs.25,000 deposit refundable; insurer to pay and recover from Lokesh.

Sri Mudlagiriyappa @ Mudalappa Vs Sri Kumaraswamy — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:42525 MFA No. 4186 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1870 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4186 OF 2020

¶7

C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1870 OF 2021(MV-D)

¶9

IN MFA NO.4186/2020:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI MUDLAGIRIYAPPA @ MUDALAPPA S/O. LATE SANNA AVALAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶12

SMT. RANGAMMA W/O. MUDALAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. UMESH S/O MUDALAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶15

ALL ARE R/O. VIDYA NAGARA (VINAYAKANAGARA) LINGENAHALLI, MADHUGIRI TOWN.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI SATHISHA T., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI KUMARASWAMY S/O. CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O. ARASIKERE NIDAGAL HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:42525 MFA No. 4186 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1870 of 2021

¶22

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. MARKET ROAD, TGMA BUILDING J. C. ROAD, TUMAKURU NOW REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THE REGIONAL OFFICER NO.44/45 LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶23

SRI. LOKESH SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶24

3(A) SMT. LAKSHMINARASAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O. LATE LOKESH

¶25

3(B) MR. PAVAN B. L. AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS S/O. LATE LOKESH

¶26

SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER NATURAL GAURDIAN SMT. LAKSHMINARASAMMA, R-3(A)

¶27

3(C) SMT. BASAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O. LATE GANGADHARAIAH

¶28

ALL ARE RESIDING AT BARAGENAHALLI POST SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶29

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT ON 22.10.2024.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRABHUGOUDA B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-3(A) - SERVED; R-3(B) – MINOR REP. BY R-3(A); R-3(C) – H/S)

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42525 MFA No. 4186 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1870 of 2021

¶32

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.804/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, PAVAGADA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. W

¶33

IN MFA NO.1870/2021:

¶34

BETWEEN:

¶35

KUMARASWAMY S/O. CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O. ARASIKERE, NIDAGAL HOBLI PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 116.

¶36

...APPELLANT

¶37

(BY SRI PRABHUGOUDA B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)

¶38

AND:

¶39

MUDLAGIRIYAPPA @ MUDALAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O. LATE SANNA AVALAPPA

¶40

SMT. RANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O. MUDLAGIRIYAPPA

¶41

UMESH

¶42

S/O. MUDLAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶43

RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO. VIDHYANAGAR (VINAYAK NAGAR) LINGENAHALLI, MADUGIRI TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 132.

¶44

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42525 MFA No. 4186 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1870 of 2021

¶45

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. MARKET ROAD, TGMA BUILDING J.C. ROAD, TUMKUR-572 101.

¶46

(POLICY NO.423291/31/2014-3584 VALID FROM 28-1-2014 TO 27-1-2015)

¶47

SRI. LOKESH SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶48

5(A) SMT. LAKSHMINARASAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O. LATE LOKESH

¶49

5(B) MR. PAVAN B. L. AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS S/O. LATE LOKESH

¶50

SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER NATURAL GAURDIAN SMT. LAKSHMINARASAMMA, R-5(A)

¶51

5(C) SMT. BASAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O. LATE GANGADHARAIAH

¶52

ALL ARE RESIDING AT BARAGENAHALLI POST SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶53

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT ON 22.10.2024.

¶54

...RESPONDENTS

¶55

(BY SRI SATHISHA T., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶56

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.804/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AND ADDITIONAL MACT, PAVAGADA, AWARDING

¶57

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42525 MFA No. 4186 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1870 of 2021

¶58

COMPENSATION OF RS.12,39,600/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF THE CLAIM PETITION UNTIL REALIZATION OF THE ENTIRE AWARD AMOUNT.

¶59

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶60

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶61

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶62

MFA No.4186/2020 is by the claimants, being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.12,39,600/awarded for the death of Manjunatha, who was aged 25 year old.

¶63

MFA No.1870/2021 is by the owner of the offending vehicle by name Kumaraswamy, who was arrayed as respondent No.1 in the Tribunal. He contends that the liability could not have been fastened on him since he had transferred the vehicle in favor of respondent No.3Lokesh.

¶64

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42525 MFA No. 4186 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1870 of 2021

¶65

The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses, as the deceased was a bachelor and applying the multiplier of 18, it has awarded a sum of Rs.12,39,600/-. The Tribunal has however fastened the liability on respondent No.1 - Kumaraswamy and has exonerated the insurer on the ground that the offending vehicle was plying in Pavagada and beyond the permit which permitted it to ply only in Nelamangala.

¶66

As a consequence, the Kumaraswamy is in appeal and the claimants are also in appeal, being dissatisfied with the compensation.

¶67

As far as the liability of Kumaraswamy is concerned, reliance is placed on Ex.R.7, which is a copy of the B-register extract, issued in excise of the Rule 48 of the KMV Rules 1989. Rule 48 of the KMV rules provides for registering authority to supply copies of the particulars of any motor vehicle registered in the records maintained by it to any person who would apply for the same.

¶68

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:42525 MFA No. 4186 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1870 of 2021

¶69

The B-register extract which is produced at Ex.R.7 would indicate that the vehicle was registered in the name of Lokesh, who was arrayed as the respondent No.3 before the Tribunal. Since the registering authority has stated that the vehicle was registered in name of Lokesh, it is obvious that the liability would have to be fastened only on Lokesh and not on Kumaraswamy, i.e., the appellant in MFA No.1870/2021.

¶70

Consequently, the appeal of Kumaraswamy will have to be allowed and the liability fastened on him will have to be set aside.

¶71

As a further consequence, a sum of Rs.25,000/deposited by him i.e., the statutory deposit, will have to be refunded it to him.

¶72

As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal, as stated above, has adopted the notional income of Rs.8,000/-. Since there is no evidence of actual income of the deceased and since the accident is of the

¶73

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:42525 MFA No. 4186 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1870 of 2021

¶74

year 2014, it would appropriate to adopt the notional income of Rs.8,500/- as determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

¶75

Since the deceased was aged 25 year as on the date of accident, future prospects of 40% is required to be added and 50% is required to be deducted towards personal expenses since the deceased was a bachelor. Then, towards loss of dependency, the claimants would be entitled to: Rs.8,500/+ Rs.3,400/(40%) = Rs.11,900/Rs.5,950/(50%) = Rs.5,950/X 12 X 18 = Rs.12,85,200/-.

¶76

The claimants being the parents and the brother of the deceased, each of them would be entitled for a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards loss of love and affection which would be Rs.1,45,200/- and a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the conventional heads.

¶77

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:42525 MFA No. 4186 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1870 of 2021

¶78

Thus, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of

¶79

Rs.14,66,700/as compensation as against

¶80

Rs.12,39,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of its realization.

¶81

As regards the liability is concerned, since it is the case of the insurer that the vehicle was being used in violation of the permit conditions, the insurer would have to nevertheless pay the compensation and thereafter proceed to recover the same from Lokesh i.e., respondent No.3 herein.

¶82

The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal of the claimants is allowed in part to this extent.

¶83

The other aspects of the award remain undisturbed.

¶84

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶85

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

¶86

GSR

Sri Mudlagiriyappa @ Mudalappa v. Sri Kumaraswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mudlagiriyappa @ Mudalappa v. Sri Kumaraswamy

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

Sri K S Ramesh Vs the Branch Manager

Smt. Y H Chaithra Vs Sri Rajeev H. Raj@ Bharath

Abdul Khuddus Vs Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Sri Govindaraju Vs Mr Shivaramegowda

Priyanka Vs Deepak

Smt D Bhavani Bai @ Bhavya Vs Sri K Balaji Singh