Partly allowed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri. Rajanna S

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2024MFA/629/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the motor accident claims tribunal award, enhancing compensation from Rs. 14.97 lakhs to Rs. 19.98 lakhs. The court held that driving without a license or helmet is an offence but does not automatically amount to contributory negligence absent evidence of rash driving. The court recalculated loss of dependency using statutory guidelines and awarded full consortium damages.

What did the court decide?

Appeal by insurance company dismissed; appeal by claimants allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs. 19,98,000/- plus interest at 6% p.a.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri. Rajanna S — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39816 MFA No. 629 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2069 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 629 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶7

C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2069 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶9

IN MFA No. 629/2019

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., T.P HUB, KRUSHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE. REP. BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 6^TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI RAJANNA S, S/O SAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶17

PAVAN R, S/O RAJANNA S, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

¶18

KARTHIK R, S/O RAJANNA S,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:39816 MFA No. 629 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2069 of 2019

¶21

AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS.

¶22

ALL ARE R/AT NO.65, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE, ADDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, RAJANUKUNTE, BANGALORE-560 064.

¶23

RESPONDENT NO.3 IS MINOR REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI RAJANNA.S/ FATHER.

¶24

DHANUSH K, S/O KUMARA, AGED MAJOR, NO.23, GRAMATANA, NAGASHETTY HALLI, BANGALORE-560 094.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N.R RANGEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; NOTICE TO R-4 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 24.01.2019)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.6004/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT, BENGALURU [SCCH-11], AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.14,97,940/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶27

IN MFA NO. 2069/2019

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

RAJANNA S, S/O SRI SAKAPPA,

¶30

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶31

PAVAN R,

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39816 MFA No. 629 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2069 of 2019

¶33

S/O SRI RAJANNA.S AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

¶34

MASTER. KARTHIK R, S/O RAJANNA.S, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, SINCE MINOR R/BY HIS FATHER AND THE N/G, THE FIRST APPELLANT VIZ., RAJANNA S.

¶35

ALL ARE R/AT #65, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE, ADDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, RAJANUKUNTE, BENGALURU-560 064.

¶36

...APPELLANTS

¶37

(BY SRI N.R RANGEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶38

AND:

¶39

DHANUSH K, S/O SRI KUMARA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.23, GRAMATANA, NAGASHETTY HALLI, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶40

M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., R/BY ITS MANAGER, T P HUB, KRUSHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶41

...RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶43

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.09.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.6004/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT, BENGALURU [SCCH-11],

¶44

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39816 MFA No. 629 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2069 of 2019

¶45

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKNG ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶46

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

¶47

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶48

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶49

MFA No.629/2019 is filed by the Insurance Company and MFA No.2069/2019 is filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) challenging the judgment and award dated 12.09.2018 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.6004/2017.

¶50

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 13.08.2017 at about 9.50 am, the deceased-Rajeshwari was proceedings in her TVS Jupiter bearing Reg.No.KA-50-X-4105 from Addiganahalli towards Yelahanka New Town via Singanayakanahalli and Bangalore – D.B.Pura Main Road, she was riding the said TVS Jupiter in extreme left side and very slowly duly

¶51

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39816 MFA No. 629 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2069 of 2019

¶52

observing the traffic rules and regulations utmost care and cautiously. When she approached near Nithothsva Kalayana Mantapa Singanayakanahlli, D.B.Pura Main Road, at that time a Honda Activa bearing Reg.No.KA-04-GA8207 suddenly came on the said road from the same direction, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶53

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

¶54

Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶55

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and

¶56

- 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39816 MFA No. 629 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2069 of 2019

¶57

award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.14,97,940/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed.

¶58

Sri. Ravish Benni, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following contentions:

¶59

a) Firstly, at the time of the accident, the deceased was not wearing helmet and also not holding Driving License to drive two wheeler. She has violated Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Hence, she has also contributed to the accident. The Tribunal has erred in holding that the rider of Honda Activa bearing Reg.No.KA04-GA-8207 alone was negligent in causing the accident. b) In respect of quantum is concerned, even though the claimants claimed that deceased was earning Rs.25,000/per month, they have not produced any document to

¶60

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39816 MFA No. 629 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2069 of 2019

¶61

establish the same. Therefore, notional income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.8,500/- per month is on higher side.

¶62

c) Thirdly, the claimants are not depending upon the income of the deceased. But the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3^rd instead of 50%.

¶63

d) Fourthly, in the cross-examination of PW.1 he has admitted that he was getting income of 50% from the hotel business.

¶64

e) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

¶65

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought for allowing that appeal filed by the Insurance Company by dismissing appeal filed by the claimant.

¶66

The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶67

a) Firstly, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the Honda Activa bearing Registration No.KA-04-GA-8207. The Tribunal has rightly held that the

¶68

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39816 MFA No. 629 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2069 of 2019

¶69

rider of the said Honda Activa alone was negligent in causing the accident. Furthermore, he submits that nonwearing of a helmet or not holding a driving license is an offense under the Act. However, unless it is proved that the deceased contributed to the accident, it cannot be held that the deceased was also negligent and caused the accident.

¶70

b) Secondly, at the time of the accident, the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by running hotel business. Tribunal assessed notional income of the deceased was Rs.8,500/- per month is on lower side.

¶71

c) Thirdly, the claimants are the husband and minor son of the deceased, they are entirely depending upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased for personal expenses.

¶72

d) Lastly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.

¶73

LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782] , each of the claimants is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- under

¶74

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39816 MFA No. 629 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2069 of 2019

¶75

the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶76

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal filed by the claimants by dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

¶77

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal and original records.

¶78

REG:QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION

¶79

Even though the claimants claimed that the deceased

¶80

was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, they have not produced any document to establish the same. According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2017, the notional income of the deceased shall be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m. The Tribunal has also rightly added 40% of the income of the deceased for ‘future prospects’. Thus the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.15,400/-.

¶81

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:39816 MFA No. 629 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2069 of 2019

¶82

PW.1 in his evidence has categorically stated that deceased was running a hotel business. The claimants were also assisting her in the hotel business and getting monthly income of Rs.25,000/- per month. PW.1 testified that the deceased ran a hotel business, and the claimants assisted, earning Rs.25,000/- monthly. During crossexamination, PW.1 admitted that after his wife's passing, he received 50% of that income from the hotel business. The claimants are the husband and minor children of the deceased and they are entirely depending upon income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal, considering the evidence and material on record, rightly deducted 1/3^rd of the deceased's income towards 'personal expenses. The deceased was aged about 36 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to her age group is ‘15’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.18,48,000/- (Rs.15,4001215*2/3) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶83

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:39816 MFA No. 629 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2069 of 2019

¶84

In addition, the claimants are entitled to

¶85

compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’.

¶86

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant No.1, husband of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- for ‘spousal consortium’ and claimants Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for compensation

¶87

of Rs.40,000/- each for ‘parental consortium’.

¶88

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

¶89

compensation:

¶90

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	18,48,000
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of spousal consortium	40,000
Loss of Parental consortium	80,000
Total	19,98,000

¶91

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:39816 MFA No. 629 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2069 of 2019

¶92

REG:NEGLIGENCE

¶93

In respect of contention of the counsel for the Insurance Company regarding deceased was not wearing helmet and not holding Driving License to ride the two wheeler is concerned, the Tribunal has given a specific finding that accident was occurred due to the negligence of rider of the offending vehicle Honda Activa bearing Reg.No.KA-04-GA-8207, The Apex Court in the case of SUDHIR KUMAR RANA vs. SURINDER SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 12 SCC 436 has held that if a person drives a vehicle without a driving licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. Relevant paragraph No.9 is extracted below:

¶94

"If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler

¶95

- 13 - NC: 2024:KHC:39816 MFA No. 629 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2069 of 2019

¶96

rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence."

¶97

Even non wearing of a helmet is also an offence

¶98

under the Act, unless it is proved that the deceased has contributed to that accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the rider of Honda Activa bearing Reg.No.KA-04-GA-8207 alone was negligent in causing that accident and it does not require for any interference.

¶99

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶100

ORDER

¶101

a) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part .

¶102

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶103

14 -

¶104

NC: 2024:KHC:39816 MFA No. 629 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2069 of 2019

¶105

c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

¶106

Rs.19,98,000/- as against Rs.14,97,940/- awarded by

¶107

the Tribunal.

¶108

d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶109

e) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount

¶110

shall be made in accordance with the terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶111

f) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to

¶112

the Tribunal.

¶113

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶114

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri. Rajanna S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri. Rajanna S

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 M v Venkataramegowda Vs Sri K P Umar

Sri Surendra H P Vs Sri Chikkanna

Mohan Naik @ Mohan Naik Chowan Vs M/S. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

The Divisional Controller Vs Lakshman Shetty @ B Lakshminnababu Shetty @ Laxmana B

Dhanalakshmi Vs K K Murthy

Rangaswamy G.R Vs M.N. Boregowda