Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 104
High Court of Karnataka
B. MANOHAR, J.
Mrs. Bhagyalaxmi & Others
Versus
Thiruvar Gopala Krishnan, Major & Others
MFA. Nos. 8698, 974, 9543, 8698 of 2010(MV)
Decided On : 15-02-2013
For the Appellants:Karunakar Associates, P.B. Raju, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R. Jaiprakash, P. Karunakar, Advocates.
The importance of considering future prospects in compensation calculations and the burden of proof on the insurer to disprove the claimants' evidence.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - MVC No.646/2006, 647/2006 - The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, 168, 171 - The court discussed the negligence of the truck driver, the deceased's income, and future prospects. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering future prospects in compensation calculations and emphasized the burden of proof on the insurer to disprove the claimants' evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased were involved in a road traffic accident due to the negligent driving of a truck. The claimants sought compensation for the loss of the bread earner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the truck and awarded compensation to the claimants. The court also acknowledged the need to consider future prospects in compensation calculations.
Issues: The issues revolved around the negligence of the truck driver, the deceased's income, and the calculation of compensation, including future prospects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering future prospects in compensation calculations and placed the burden of proof on the insurer to disprove the claimants' evidence.
Final Decision: MFA Nos.8698/2010 and 9543/2010 filed by the claimants are partly allowed. MFA No.974/2010 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. The appellants/claimants in MFA No.8698/2010 are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,29,500/- and the appellants/claimants in MFA NO.9543/2010 are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,67,000/-. In all other respects, the judgment and award remains undisturbed.
1. The claimants as well as the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.646/2006 and 647/2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangalore in judgment and award dated 16-10-2009 filed these appeals.
2. MFA No.8698/2010 and MFA No.9543/2010 are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. MFA No.974/2010 is filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to the appellants in MFA No.8698/2010.
3. Since the common question of law is involved in these appeals and a common order was made in MVC Nos.646/2006 and 647/2006 by the MACT, Mangalore, all the appeals are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order.
4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The husband of the first appellant and father of the second appellant and son of the appellants 3 and 4, and brother of appellant No.5 one K.Mahesh in MFA.No.8698/2010 was proceeding in a motorbike bearing registration No.KA- 19/N-4132 as a pillion rider on 22-12-2005 at about 2.25 p.m. which was driven by A.S.Somasekhar who is the husband of the first appellant and father of the appellants 2 to 4 and son of the appellants 5 and 6 in MFA No.9543/2010. When the vehicle came near the Thokkottu junction, a Truck bearing Registration No.TN-28/K-3301 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the two wheeler. Due to the accident, the rider as well as the pillion rider sustained injuries and they were shifted to K.S.Hegde Hospital, however, they died during the treatment.
5. The claimants in MVC No.646/2006 claim that the deceased K.Mahesh was working as a Security Officer in Sai Securities and Detective Services getting salary of Rs.5,000/- p.m. and also working as a watchman and earning in all a sum of Rs.7,000/-p.m. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No.TN-28/K- 3301 and sought for compensation. At the time of death, he was aged about 29 years. Due to the death of Mahesh, the family has lost the bread earner and sought for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
6. The claimants in MVC No.647/2006 in their claim petition contended that the deceased A.S.Somasekhar was working as a Police Constable in KSRP and getting salary of Rs.7,000/- p.m. Due to the death of the bread earner, the family became destitute. The Ullal Police registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle. The accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck and sought for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
7. Though the owner of the vehicle was served with notice, he remained unrepresented. The Insurance Company filed objections to the claim petition and contended that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorbike and also there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorbike. Further, the Insurer disputed the age and salary drawn by the deceased and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.
8. The Tribunal, on considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and also on verification of the Police report came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No.KA-28/K-3301. The Police have registered a case against the driver of the said vehicle. Hence, the actionable negligence is on the driver of the said truck and the claimants are entitled for compensation.
9. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, the first claimant in MVC No.646/2006 examined herself as P.W.1. and got marked the salary certificate of the deceased K.Mahesh as Ex.P6 and also examined the Employer of the deceased as P.W.5. The P.W.5 in his evidence deposed that the deceased was working under him as a Security Officer and he was paying him a salary of Rs.5,000/- p.m. The Tribunal taking into consideration income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/
