IMPORTANT POINT
Death in motor accident – To deny victim/dependents of victim compensation simply because accident took place outside bounds of permit and is outside purview of insurance policy, would be offensive to sense of justice.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Leave granted.

1. These appeals are directed against the common final judgment and order dated 25th September 2019 in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 2947 of 2017 with Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1024 of 2018, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, which in turn were preferred against the judgment and order dated 14th December 2016 passed in Claim Petition No. 566/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Addl. MACT, Channapatna.

2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 7th October 2014, the deceased, namely Srinivasa alias Murthy who was riding on his motorcycle and was hit by the offending vehicle, bearing registration number KA-52- 9099, in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in his death on the spot.

3. The Appellant(s) (dependents of the deceased) filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- along with an interest @ 18%, submitting therein that the deceased was the only earning member of the family, running a business of Shamiyana Centre and a Ration Shop; and earning up to Rs. 15,000/- per month.

4. The Tribunal, by its order dated 14th December 2016 awarded the Appellant(s) an amount of Rs. 18,86,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a, taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 8,000/- per month. Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded, the Claimant-Appellant(s) filed an appeal before the High Court on the ground that the compensation was not correctly calculated by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company also challenged the Tribunal’s order on the ground of violation by the insurer of the conditions enumerated in the policy; both the appeals were heard and disposed of vide the common impugned judgment and order.

5. The High Court, vide the common impugned judgement and order dated 25th September,2019 partly allowed both the appeals.

5.1 Accepting the contentions of Claimant- Appellant(s) by reassessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 15,750/- per month and by giving 40% towards future prospects, and since in the present case there were 4 dependents of the deceased 1/4th of the income was deducted towards personal expenses and after applying the multiplier of 16 the compensation payable to the Appellant(s) under the head ‘loss of dependency’ was assessed at Rs. 30,24,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- was awarded to the widow towards ‘loss of spousal consortium’ and Rs. 30,000/- to the deceased's son towards ‘loss of parental consortium’ and Rs. 30,000/- each to the parents of the deceased towards ‘loss of filial consortium’. In addition to this, the Appellant(s) were awarded Rs. 15,000/- each towards loss of estate and for funeral expenses totaling to Rs. 31,84,000/-.

5.2 As regards the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company, it was contended by the counsel for the Insurance Company that the route which was undertaken by the bus driver was not covered by the permit issued and that the driver of the bus was not authorized to enter Channapatna City and that the permit only covered the route from Bengaluru to Mysore, which is admitted by both the parties, goes on to show that there was a deviation in route and that it was in violation of the permit. The High Court relied on the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Amrit Paul and Anr. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company & Ors., (2018) 7 SCC 558 wherein this Court held that:-

24. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle i