Back
Karnataka High Court
JAYANTHI S.SHETTY - Appellant
Versus
P.SHIVAJI SHETTY - Respondent
Decided On : 12-05-02
M.F.A. : 4799 of 1998
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Section 173(1) -Enhancement of compensation -driver of the vehicle met with accident -led to death -mother claiming compensation -loss of dependency - cases referred -principles discernible from -applied -held, the mother is entitled to a just compensation.
[M. F. Saldanha, & D. V. Shylendra Kumar, JJ.] - The evolution in so far as compensating the victims of road accidents both on the legislative front and on the interpretary horizon by the courts, is to view the problem more as a social problem and to ensure that with such approach that third party victims of road accidents are provided just compensation whenever they become victims of road accidents involving motor vehicles. Ultimately the attitude is one of viewing the whole aspect as one due to the increase of vehicular movement on the road which is part of the development in a society. The problem is looked at as a social problem and not necessarily as a problem of a victim of a road accident vis-a-vis the tort-feasor. The whole object of making insurance compulsory, in respect of the claims arising by third parties due to accidents involving motor vehicles is to achieve this purpose of mitigating the social problem. In such circumstances from a mother s point of view death of her only son due to an accident involving a motor vehicle, is necessarily a part of such social problem, a mother being left without the otherwise legitimate and definite dependency in the evening of her life due to an accident even if the person driving the vehicle involved in the accident is her very son, justifies compensation in her favour if the principles that are evolved and the trend that is discernible in the cases referred to above is to be followed. In the circumstances, though the claim petition may not have pleaded the nature and extent of dependency that the accident has caused deprivation of such dependency to the claimant this is an aspect that can be definitely inferred in the circumstances and compensate the claimant to, the extent justified. Without going into the further details of the actual income of the deceased at the time of the accident and the future potential having regard to a bright career and in turn, arrive at the loss of dependency to the claimant on such projected income of the deceased, quantifying the over all loss of dependency at a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- would be a fair and just amount in the circumstances having regard to the fact that as the mother was aged about 57 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier would be on the lower side though the multiplicand may be on the higher side due to the potential bright future of the claimant s son. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the total quantum of compensation payable to the claimant-appellant is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.2,60,000/-
Cases Referred : ILR 2001 Kar 493; ILR 2000 Kar 886; AIR 1998 SC 1433; AIR 200 SC 235; (1994) 5 SCC 667; (1987) 2 SCC 654; (1986) 4 SCC 647; 1861-1873 AER1.
( 1 ) IN this appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), preferred by the claimant in M. V. C. No. 696 of 1996 before the Court of Motor Accidents Claims tribunal at Udupi, the correctness of the judgment and award dated 27-7-1998 passed in that M. V. C. awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is challenged and enhancement of compensation to the extent of rs. 8,20,000/- is sought for by the allowing of this appeal.
( 2 ) THE brief facts, as claimed in the claim petition and leading to this appeal are as under. The son of the claimant-appellant by name Gautham Shetty, aged about 24 years, was driving a Maruthi car bearing registration No. KA-20-2000 owned by his father, the first respondent in the appeal as well as the MVC case, and accompanied by two of his doctor friends and was proceeding towards Udupi on the National Highway No. 17 on the midnight/early hours of 15-12-1995. At a spot called Balaipade near Kinnimulkey, the driver of the vehicle lost control of the vehicle which is attributed to the bad condition of the road and hit a tree on the right side of the road. The accident was gruesome enough to cause the instantaneous death of the driver Gautham Shetty, as also his two other friends in the car at that time. The claim petition inter alia pleaded that the deceased Gautham Shetty was the only son of the claimant; that he was a very dynamic, bright and promising youngster, who had just entered the legal profession and the premature death had snuffed out the aspirations of not only the deceased, but had caused untold misery and has brought gloom to the life of the claimant and her family etc.
( 3 ) THE claimant brought the claim before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Mangalore by filing the petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation for the death of her son involving the motor vehicle referred to above and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was claimed towards the cost of the journey that the claimant had to undertake due to the death of her son; in the accident a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was also claimed towards funeral expenses, religious functions, obsequies ceremonies and other incidental expenses. The owner of the vehicle was impleaded as the first respondent who incidentally is no other than the husband of the claimant and father of the deceased person. The Insurance Company with which the vehicle had been insured, was impleaded as the second respondent to the claim petition. The claim petition was resisted by both respondents. While the first respondent filed a statement admitting the ownership of the vehicle involved in the accident, he emphatically denied that he was liable to pay any compensation amount as claimed in the claim petition. However, this respondent averred that the vehicle having been insured with the second respondent, it is only the second respondent who is liable to pay any amount as was claimed in the claim petition and as such pleaded for rejection of the petition insofar as the first respondent was concerned.
( 4 ) THE second respondent also filed an objection statement denying the averments put forth in the claim petition. The liability was also denied to the extent of claim sought for which was not admitted. It was also pointed out that as the claim petition itself indicated that the accident was due to the bad condition of the road, it was the Government which was liable to compensate the claimant if at all she was entitled for any compensation and that the claim petition was as such bad for nonjoinder of necessary party and also pleaded that the deceased being an unnamed passenger, there was no liability on the part of the insurer under the policy and without prejudice, averred that the liability of the second respondent was strictly in conformity with the terms of the policy that had been issued in respect of the vehicle in question.
( 5 ) IN view of such rival pleadings, the Tribu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
