Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Siddamma

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:30822 MFA No. 6677 of 2022

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6677 OF 2022 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING, M G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SIDDAMMA, W/O LATE THIPPANNA @ THIPPESH @ THIPPESWAMY @ CHANDRU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

KUMARI DURGAMMA, D/O LATE THIPPANNA @ THIPPESH @ THIPPESWAY @ CHANDRU, AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS, (MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AS A NATURAL GUARDIAN)

¶15

MASTER SHIVAGUNDA, S/O LATE THIPPANNA @ THIPPESH @ THIPPESWAY @ CHANDRU, AGED ABOUT 07 YEARS, (MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AS A NATURAL GUARDIAN)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30822 MFA No. 6677 of 2022

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

4. NAGAMMA,

¶19

W/O LATE THIPPANNA @ THIPPESH @ THIPPESWAY @ CHANDRU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶20

ALL ARE RESIDING IN PERMANENT ADDRESS: R/A HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, WARD NO.2, GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT - 583 227.

¶21

LOCAL ADDRESS NEAR HOUSE NO.134, 3RD CROSS IST MAIN ROADKEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT BENGALURU-560086

¶22

5. SAVITHA S,

¶23

W/O B PRAKASH, NO.93/A, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD KRISHNANANDA NAGARA, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560 096.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR SWAMY K B., ADVOCATE)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MVC ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.07.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 6801/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-23, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.27,10,000/WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶27

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

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:30822 MFA No. 6677 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.6801/2018 dated 13.07.2022 by XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Member MACT, Bengaluru, whereby the Court had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.27,10,000/-, the appellant/Insurance Company is before this Court questioning the liability.

¶34

The brief facts of the case are on 28.09.2018 at about 6:40 p.m., while Mr.Thippanna was crossing the road situated in front of Kempegowda Bus Stop, near Saibaba Temple, Ring Road, Bengaluru City, the driver of Eicher Canter bearing Reg.No.KA-02-AA-1648 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Due to the impact he fell down and succumbed to the grievous injuries.

¶35

The insurance Company is assailing the award on the following grounds:

¶36

i. There is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30822 MFA No. 6677 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

ii. The second wife cannot be considered as a dependant and with regard to the age of the deceased, as per the genealogical tree is 50 years and as per the postmortem, it is shown as 35 years and the Court has taken 35 years, which is not correct. In the genealogical tree the second wife is shown as sister but not as the wife and even on that count she cannot be considered.

¶40

Learned counsel for the insurance Company submits

¶41

the deceased had crossed the road, where there was no zebra crossing and the accident has happened while he was reaching the middle of the road. It is submitted that there is contributory negligence and the Court has failed to consider it. He had relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ms.Leelambika

¶42

V/s The Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation

¶43

and another , in MFA No.5546/2018 connected with MFA No.6746/2018, dated 25.11.2020, relying on this judgment in paragraph Nos.11 and 12, he submits that there is contributory negligence. Coming to the aspect of the age, he submits that the genealogical tree shows that deceased was 50 years old and when they have placed all the documents pertaining to the other claimants, why they have not placed the documents pertaining to the deceased it shows that there is something

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30822 MFA No. 6677 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

fishy in that and the Court ought to have taken the age as 50

¶47

years. He further submits that the second wife cannot be a dependant and all the documents that are filed to show that she is the second wife and are all subsequent to the death of the deceased. It is submitted that even those documents cannot inspire confidence in the mind of the Court and further a second wife cannot be treated as a dependent.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for respondents / claimant submits that the sketch that is Ex.P5 clearly shows that while he was crossing from the left side of the road and has came to the extreme right side of the road, the offending vehicle had gone to the right side and hit the deceased. It clearly shows that it is a clear case of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the Court had rightly held that there is no contributory negligence. He submits that when there are no documents with regard to the age of the victim, only the postmortem certificate has to be considered and as per that he is 35 years old and even on that count also there is no interference is called for. With regard to the dependency of the deceased he had relied on the division Bench judgment of this Court in case of the Managing

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:30822 MFA No. 6677 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Director of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport

¶53

Corporation V/s Smt.P.Shanthi and others , arising out of in MFA No.7749/2016 dated 07.09.2022. He relied on paragraph nos.21 and 22, which reads as under:

¶54

21. The learned counsel for the BMTC-Corporation also sought to contend that the deductions arrived by the Tribunal deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses is contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma as the dependants are three in number and the personal expenses to be deducted is 1/3rd. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the second wife and the child through the second wife are not dependants and are not entitled for the compensation. The Apex Court in the case of N.Jayashree Vs. Cholamandalam [AIR 2021 SC 5218] (Jayashree) has held at paragraph No.14, 15 and 17 as under:

¶55

"14. The MV Act does not define the term 'legal representative'. Generally, 'legal representative' means a person who in law represents the estate of the deceased person and includes any person or persons in whom legal right to receive compensatory benefit vests. A legal representative' may also include any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. Such person does not necessarily have to be a legal heir. Legal heirs are the persons who are entitled to inherit the surviving

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:30822 MFA No. 6677 of 2022

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

estate of the deceased. A legal heir may also be a legal representative.

¶59

15. Indicatively for the present inquiry, the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, defines the term 'legal representative' as under: "Legal Representative" means a person who in law is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased if he had left any estate at the time of his death and also includes any legal heir of the decease and the executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased.

¶60

17. It is settled that percentage of deduction for personal expenses cannot be governed by a rigid rule or formula of universal application. It also does not depend upon the basis of relationship of the claimant with the deceased. In some cases, the father may have his own income and thus will not be considered as dependent. Sometimes, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents because they may either be independent or earning or married or be dependent on the father. The percentage of deduction for personal expenditure, thus, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case."

¶61

22. In the present case PW.1 the first wife of the deceased has categorically stated that the claimants are dependant upon the deceased and when the first wife itself does not dispute the relationship of claimant No.4 Smt. Kamakshi .P with that of the deceased and in view of the fact that the claimants were residing together and were

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:30822 MFA No. 6677 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

dependant on the deceased and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Jayashree's case we are of the considered view that the second wife and the child through second wife needs to be considered as dependants and are entitled for compensation. Thus the deduction of 1/4^th arrived by the Tribunal is justifiable.

¶65

Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the second wife can be treated as a dependant, in light of the division Bench judgment.

¶66

Having heard the counsels on either side and perused the material on record.

¶67

First, coming to the aspect of contributory negligence, this Court has perused Ex.P5. The accident had taken place opposite to the bus stand and even the sketch shows that from the extreme left side of the road, the offending vehicle had gone to the right side and hit the deceased, who had crossed 95% of the road. The judgment i.e., relied on by the learned counsel appearing for respondents/claimant, in the division Bench judgment, there is no dispute with regard to the said proposition. However, the judgments have to be applied to the facts and circumstances of each case and the said

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:30822 MFA No. 6677 of 2022

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

judgment do not apply to the facts of the case, wherein the said judgment the claimant has admitted that he has noticed the opposite vehicle. In the considered opinion of the court, there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Then coming to the age, the Court had rightly considered the age i.e., mentioned in the postmortem certificate as there are no other evidence and for the purpose of age, the Court cannot look at the genealogical tree. Then coming to the dependency of the wife, in the light of the division Bench judgment in the case of Ms.Leelambika (supra) and in the case of Managing Director, BMTC (supra), even the second wife has to be considered as a dependant. In view of the above discussion, this Court do not find any reason to interfere.

¶71

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance

¶72

Company is dismissed .

¶73

i. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the trial Court. Remaining amount, if any shall deposited by the insurance company with in four weeks and on such deposit claimant is at liberty to withdraw.

¶74