Partly allowed

The Manager v. Smt. Lakshmamma

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2024MFA/8602/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident appeals by insurer and claimant against award in a fatal accident involving a tipper lorry running over a pillion rider who fell from a skidding bike. Court affirmed 50:50 negligence apportionment, held the bike's insurer liable with recovery rights against the owner despite invalid licence and triple riding, enhanced compensation to Rs.12,36,400/- and reduced interest to 6%.

What did the court decide?

Claimant appeal partly allowed: compensation enhanced to Rs.12,36,400 payable equally by both insurers; insurer's appeal partly allowed: interest reduced to 6% p.a.

The Manager Vs Smt. Lakshmamma — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11823 MFA No. 8602 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 10008 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8602 OF 2017

¶7

(MV-D)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10008 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶10

IN MFA. 8602 / 2017

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

THE MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., OPP RAMAMANDIRA GENERAL KARIYAPPA ROAD, K R EXTENSION , TUMAKURU NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

REGIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 2-B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, P.KALINGA RAO ROAD, BENGALURU 560027

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

(BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE PARADASAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A H.NO.502, ALALGHATTA GUBBI TALUK

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:11823 MFA No. 8602 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 10008 of 2018

¶21

NOW R/O NO.50, II CROSS SADASHIVANAGAR, TUMAKURU

¶22

2. RAJANNA

¶23

S/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶24

R/O SHANTHINAGAR, TUMAKUR

¶25

SIDDESH S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O ALALGATTA, HAGALAVADI HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. K SHANTHARAJ.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2- V/O DTD. 17.12.18 NOTICE D/W;

¶28

SRI. MANU SHANKAR S.S., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶29

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED17.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1024/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, TUMKUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,05,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶30

IN MFA NO.10008 / 2018 BETWEEN:

LAKSHAMMA

W/O LATE PARADESAIAH

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

R/AT NO.H502, ALAGHATTA, GUBBI TALUK NOW RESIDING AT NO.50 2ND CROSS SADASHIVANAGAR, TUMAKURU-572101

¶35

…APPELLANT

¶36

(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE)

¶37

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11823 MFA No. 8602 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 10008 of 2018

¶38

AND:

¶39

RAJANNA

¶40

S/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHANTHINAGAR TUMAKURU-572101

¶41

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BY ITS MANAGER, OPP RAMAMANDIRA, GENERAL KARIAPPA ROAD, K R EXTENSION, TUMAKURU-572101

¶42

SIDDESH

¶43

S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, REIDING AT ALAGHATTA HAGALAVADI HOBLI GUBBI TALUK-572216

¶44

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BY ITS MKANAGER KASTURI MANSION M G ROAD, BEHIND KRISHNA TALKIES ABOVE CORPORATION BANK TUMAKUR-572101

¶45

…RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI.A.N. KRISHNASWAMY.,ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI.C. SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R4; V/O DTD: 28.05.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶47

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED17.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1024/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, TUMKUR, PARTLY

¶48

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11823 MFA No. 8602 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 10008 of 2018

¶49

ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶50

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

Aggrieved by the award dated 17.06.2017, passed in MVC No.1024/2015, by the 1^st Additional District And Sessions Judge And MACT, Tumkur, the insurer of the tipper lorry and the claimant are before this court. The appeal of the insurance company is numbered as MFA No.8602/2017 and the appeal of the claimant is numbered as MFA No.10008/2018.

¶53

The claimant is the mother of the deceased. It

¶54

is her case that on 24.04.2015 at 11.15 a.m, one Narasimhamurthy was riding the Pulsar motor bike along with the deceased and one Ramesh as Pillion riders. In the process of overtaking a car which was proceeding ahead of him, the motor bike skidded. As a result, the rider and pillion riders fell on the road and at that time a tipper lorry being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner

¶55

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11823 MFA No. 8602 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 10008 of 2018

¶56

ran over the deceased. As a result the deceased suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.

¶57

The police after investigation had filed the charge-sheet against the rider of the motor bike, as well as the driver of the tipper lorry.

¶58

On the aspect of the liability the court below

¶59

has held that there is triple riding and because of the negligence of the rider, the deceased fell down and as the rider of the tipper lorry was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner he could not avoid the accident and hence the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent riding the motor cycle as well as the driver of the tipper lorry and apportioned the contributory negligence at 50% on the both. The tipper was insured by the New India Insurance Company and the motor bike is insured by the National Insurance Company. When it comes to the bike, as there was triple riding and the rider of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license the court below held that the owner of the bike alone is liable

¶60

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11823 MFA No. 8602 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 10008 of 2018

¶61

to pay the compensation. When it comes to the income according to the claimant, the deceased was aged 28 years and he was working in a private factory and was earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- p.m. The court below had taken the income at Rs.5,000/- and granted

¶62

compensation as per the table below:

¶63

	Heads		Co	mpensation Awarded
1.	Loss of Dependency	:	Rs.	7,65,000/-
2.	Love and Affection	:	Rs.	10,000/-
3.	Transportation & Funeral Expenses	:	Rs.	20,000/-
4.	Loss of Estate	:	Rs.	10,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	8,05,000/-

¶64

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance

¶65

company submits that when the accident had taken place because of the negligence on the part of the rider of the motor bike and all the three people had fell down, there was no occasion for the tipper lorry driver to stop the vehicle and the contributory negligence fixed by the court below on the driver of the tipper lorry is without any basis.

¶66

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:11823 MFA No. 8602 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 10008 of 2018

¶67

He further submits that the court below had granted interest at 8% per annum which is on the higher side and has to be reduced.

¶68

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the court below had exonerated the insurance company who has insured the motor bike. It is submitted that there is no dispute about the fact that the accident had occurred because of the negligence on part of the rider of the motor bike and the deceased was a pillion rider. It is submitted that even in case there is no valid driving license with the rider of the bike, still the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and recover the

¶69

same from the owner of the motor bike. It is submitted that not having the driving license and triple riding itself is not a ground to exonerate the insurance company from the liability. It is further submitted that the claimant is the third party to the insurance policy and the claimant is not concerned with the driving license and other issues the

¶70

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:11823 MFA No. 8602 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 10008 of 2018

¶71

court below ought to have held that the insurer of the motor bike is also liable to pay the compensation.

¶72

When it comes to the compensation the

¶73

learned counsel submits that the according to the claimant i.e., deceased was earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- but the court below had taken only an amount of Rs.5,000/as income. He submits that it is the mother who is only the claimant and dependant. Hence, the court below ought to have deducted 1/3^rd , instead the court below had deducted 50% which is not correct. It is submitted that the compensation that was awarded by the court below is not just and reasonable.

¶74

Learned counsel appearing for the insurer

¶75

of the bike submits that the court below had rightly exonerated the insurance company from the liability as the rider of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license and in the bike three people were riding and the deceased was the pillion rider and having known the consequence of

¶76

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:11823 MFA No. 8602 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 10008 of 2018

¶77

the triple riding still they were travelling on the same and the court below had rightly exonerated the insurance company.

¶78

Having heard the learned counsel on

¶79

either side, perused the entire material on record. First issue is with regard to the liability. According to the insurer of the tipper lorry, there was no occasion for the driver to stop the vehicle and the accident had taken place because of the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. This court has perused the evidence, as well as the Police documents which are filed. A charge-sheet is filed against the driver of the tipper as well as the rider of the motorcycle. Had the driver of the tipper was more careful he could have avoided the accident. The eyewitness to the accident has clearly deposed that the driver of the tipper lorry was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The court below had rightly apportioned the negligence at 50% on the driver of the bike and 50% on the driver of tipper.

¶80

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:11823 MFA No. 8602 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 10008 of 2018

¶81

Then coming to the aspect of exonerating the insurance company which has insured the bike is concerned. The ground on which it is exonerated is that the rider of the bike is not having a valid driving license. This issue is no more a Res-Integra in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS¹ . The insurance

¶82

company is liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶83

Coming the compensation according to the

¶84

claimant the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.8,000/-. The court below had taken an amount of Rs.5,000/- as income. Considering that this accident is of the year 2015 this court is taking the income at an amount of Rs.8,000/-. The deceased was aged 28 years hence, the loss of future prospects has to be taken at 40% i.e.,

¶85

1 (2004) 3 SCC 297

¶86

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:11823 MFA No. 8602 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 10008 of 2018

¶87

Rs.3,200/-. As the deceased was a bachelor 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.11,42,400/- (8000 + 40% - 50% = 5,200 x 12 x 17) towards Loss Of Dependency . Towards Consortium an amount of Rs.48,000/- is granted, and towards Funeral Expenses

¶88

an amount of Rs.36,000/- is granted.

¶89

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER² , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses .

¶90

The claimant is therefore, entitled to the

¶91

compensation under the following heads:

¶92

Description		By Tribunal	By this Court
Loss of Dependency	Rs.	7,65,000/-	11,42,400/-
Consortium, Love and Affection	Rs.	10,000/-	48,000/-
Transportation & Funeral Expenses	Rs.	20,000/-	36,000/-

¶93

2 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶94

12 -

¶95

NC: 2024:KHC:11823 MFA No. 8602 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 10008 of 2018

¶96

Loss of Estate	Rs.	10,000/-	0
Legal Expenses	Rs.	0	10,000/-
Total	Rs.	8,05,000/-	12,36,400/-
Enhancement		Rs.4,31,	400/-

¶97

Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant in

¶98

MFA No.10008/2018 is Partly Allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.8,05,000/- to Rs.12,36,400/-. The compensation amount is liable to be paid by the insurer 50% i.e., insurer of tipper lorry Rs.6,18,200/- and 50% i.e., Rs.6,18,200/- to be paid by the insurer of the motor cycle and thereafter the insurance company is at liberty to recover from the owner of the vehicle. The appeal filed by the insurance company in MFA No.8602/2017 is Partly Allowed and the rate of interest is reduced from 8% to 6% per annum.

¶99

i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of

¶100

realization.

¶101

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:11823 MFA No. 8602 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 10008 of 2018

¶102

ii) The apportionment made by the court below with regard to the compensation shall hold good.

¶103

iii) The insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶104

iv) The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶105

v) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶106

14 -

¶107

NC: 2024:KHC:11823 MFA No. 8602 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 10008 of 2018

¶108

vi) No costs.

¶109

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶110

SD/JUDGE

¶111

¶112

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

The Manager v. Smt. Lakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Smt. Lakshmamma

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

J Gopinath Vs Kousalya Gopinath

Smt Vaishnavi M Vs Srikanth R

Sri. Nasappa Vs Smt. Varalakshmi

Rakshith H S Vs Nafeej Ahamad

Sri Jagadeesha Vs Nagalakshmi K L

Smt Saroja Vs Sri Ravikumar