Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
N. Kumar and C.R. Kumaraswamy, JJ.
Lalita - Appellants
Vs.
M.R. Sunilkumar and Ors. - Respondent
MFA Nos. 24051 and 24165/2012 and MFA No. 24186/2012 (MV)
Decided On : 25.02.2014
Thus, where a second wife of deceased though her marriage was void, was living with her husband for more than 20 to 25 years, gave birth to a child and was in possession of all his belongings on the date of death of the deceased and was dependent on the income of husband, she would fall within the definition of intermeddler and, as an intermeddler, also she would be a legal representative and therefore can maintain a petition for compensation. It was moreso when it is she who admitted him to the hospital. She was by his side for 2½ months in the hospital. It is she who took the dead body and buried him and performed the obsequies ceremonies. The total medical bill which runs into lakhs was partly paid by her - However, at the same time the first wife, who had been living separately, for whatever reason and even if she was not dependent on the deceased, would be entitled to compensation, as a legally wedded wife and also as a person entitled to the estate of the deceased. Similarly, the daughter of the second wife, though illegitimate, by virtue of Section 16(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, is to be treated as legitimate child. She would be entitled to a share in the estate of the father as class-I heir and the petition filed by her can neither be dismissed nor she can be denied the compensation.
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Section 168: [N. Kumar & C.R. Kumaraswamy, JJ] Determination of compensation - "Loss of consortium"- First wife of deceased was not living with him for more than 25 years - Held, She would not be entitled for amount for loss of consortium but she would be entitled for amount towards loss of estate. Second wife who lived with deceased for more than 20-25 years till his death and was dependent on him would be entitled for amount towards loss of consortium.
N. Kumar, J.
1. These three appeals are preferred against a common order passed by the claims Tribunal. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together.
2. MVC No. 102/2008 is filed by Smt. Lalitha, for compensation claiming to be the first wife of the deceased Rudragouda Patil; MVC No. 73/2009 is also filed for compensation by Pushpa and Neethi, claiming to be the wife and daughter of deceased Rudragouda Patil. Both these petitions were clubbed with another petition, where claim for injury was made, common evidence was recorded and impugned order came to be passed, dismissing the petition filed by Pushpa and Neethi and MFA No. 24186 of 2012 is filed against the said dismissal order. In MVC No. 102/2008, while awarding compensation to Lalitha, a finding was recorded that Pushpa, the third respondent therein is not the wife of Rudragouda Patil and therefore, she is not entitled to any compensation. Therefore, Smt. Pushpa has preferred MFA No. 24051/2012. Smt. Lalitha, who claims to be the first wife, has also preferred MFA No. 24165/2012 seeking enhancement of compensation. As such these three appeals are taken together for consideration and disposed of by a common order.
3. Rudragouda Patil was working as Regional Manager with Omni-Lens Pvt. Ltd., and was drawing handsome salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month plus other perquisites. He was also running paying guest home and was earning Rs. 35,000/-. That apart, he was also earning Rs. 2,00,000/- from agriculture. In all the deceased was earning more than Rs. 9,00,000/-. On the fateful day that is 6.09.2007 he had gone to bring milk on his Active-Honda vehicle and when he was near Big Bazar, Bangalore at about 6:30 a.m., a Tata Sumo bearing No. KA-13/A-2969 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver came and dashed against him and also one pedestrian. Due to the impact, he was dragged for more than 25 to 35 feet and sustained severe head injuries and other injuries all over the body. Immediately he was taken to nearby Shekar Hospital, from where he was taken to Nimhans Hospital in Bangalore, where it was advised that he should be taken to Sagar Apollo Hospital in Bangalore. Accordingly he was admitted as an inpatient from 16.09.2007 to 30.11.2007 in Sagar Apollo Hospital; more than ten major operations were conducted under general anesthesia. The claimants claim that they have spent about Rs. 20,00,000/-. In spite of best efforts and best treatment, Rudragouda Patil succumbed to the injuries on 30.11.2007; his body was taken to Victoria Hospital for postmortem and thereafter funeral ceremony was conducted in Bangalore.
4. Smt. Pushpa claiming to be the wife and Neethi, her daughter originally preferred a claim petition in MVC No. 9087/2007 on the file of the MACT, Bangalore. Smt. Lalitha claiming to be the first wife preferred a claim petition in MVC No. 102/2008 on the file of the MACT, Hubli claiming compensation of Rs. 90,00,000/-. On coming to know of the filing of the petition by Pushpa and Neethi, Smt. Lalitha moved this Court in Civil Petition No. 506/2008 and got the petition on the file of MACT, Bangalore transferred to the Tribunal at Hubli. That is how both these petitions were clubbed together and a common trial was conducted before the Tribunal at Hubli.
5. After service of notice, respondents entered appearance. The owner of the vehicle in question remained ex parte. It is only the insurance company which filed the statement of objections contending that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the deceased and, therefore, it was not liable to pay any compensation. However, it did not dispute the accident and the insurance coverage to the vehicle in question.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues in MVC No. 102/2008 and M.V.C. No. 73/2009.
"ISSUES IN MVC No. 102/2008
1. Wheth
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
