Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
S.N. SATYANARAYANA, J.
The Divisional Manager M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Chandravva Siddagouda Patil & Ors. - Respondents
M.F.A. No. 24722 of 2011 (MV) C/W. M.F.A. No. 24721 of 2011 (MV), MFA CROB No. 814 of 2013 (MV) In MFA No. 24722 of 2011
Decided On : 13-03-2017
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 – Section 168 – Death of housewife – Cliam by mother-in-law and three minor children – Tribunal taking notional income at Rs. 3000 – Awarding Rs. 1,50,000 for each child and Rs. 81,000 to mother-in-law of deceased – Held, Not proper – Lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 awarded to each minor – Minor children also held to be entitled to Rs. 69,000 towards reimbursement of medical expenses – Award made to mother-in-law was set aside.
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 – Section 168 – Income of Housewife – Pleadings attaching some avocation need not be given much importance in absence of proof – Role of a woman as housewife is more than that of a tailor, milk or vegetable vendor – Hence, compensation has to be awarded by adopting a practical approach.
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 – Sections 166 & 168 – Composite negligence – Claim against one tort-feasor – Accident involving two vehicles – Claimants travelling in one vehicle – Drivers of both vehicles contributing to accident – Claimants neither owners nor drivers of vehicles involved – They were only inmates of one vehicle – Thus, they have not contributed to accident – It is open to insurer and owner of each vehicle to plead contributory negligence on each other – Insurer cannot challenge award exclusively against one tort-feasor – Claimants need to implead both tort-feasors.
The 2nd respondent insurer in MVC Nos.287 and 288 of 2010, on the file of Fast Track Court-IV, Belagavi, has come up in these two appeals challenging the finding regarding contributory negligence said to have been contributed by the driver of Eicher goods vehicle bearing registration No.MH12/AU4032. The cross objection in MFA CROB No.814/2013 is by the claimants in MVC No. 288/2010, which was filed by the mother-in-law for herself and on behalf of her three minor grandchildren seeking compensation for the death of Smt. Anjana, who is her daughter-in-law and mother of other petitioners in the said claim petition.
2. The brief facts leading to these appeals and cross objection are that on 30.6.2007 at about 23.00 hours when owner of car bearing registration No.MH09/S1873 namely Dandesh Patil was driving the aforesaid vehicle along with his mother Smt. Chandravva and his wife Smt. Anjana and a neighbour of their family Smt. Vimala as inmates in the said car, the same met with an accident involving truck bearing registration No. MH12/AU4032 registered with 2nd respondent insurer in claim proceedings.
3. The accident is not in dispute, so also the death of Vimala an occupant of the said car who died on the next day of the accident i.e., 1.7.2007 and also death of Smt. Anjana wife of Dandesh who was driving the car at the relevant time. Thereafter three claim petitions came to be filed, one by Dandesh Patil seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by himself which is in MVC No.286/2010, another by his mother Smt. Chandravva seeking compensation for herself in MVC No.287/2010 and one more by the mother-in-law and children of deceased Anjana in MVC No.288/2010.
4. In these proceedings neither the counsel for the insurer nor the claimants in MVC Nos. 287 and 288 of 2010 knows whether any claim petition is filed by another victim Vimala in the said accident and what is the result of it.
5. Now, coming to the appeals on hand, these two appeals are filed by the 2nd respondent in MVC Nos. 287 and 288 of 2010 in challenging the awarding of compensation to the claimants therein and also in not considering the contributory negligence on the part of the driver, owner and insurer of car bearing registration No.MH09/S1873, which was driven by Dandesh Patil at the time of accident.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and as well as the contesting respondent on these two appeals and as well as on the cross objection which is filed by the claimants in MVC No.288/2010 seeking enhancement of the compensation. It is seen that the claim petition in MVC No.286/2010, which is filed by Dandesh has been abated due to his death. So far as other two petitions are concerned, one is by Chandravva seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by her and another by Chandravva and her grandchildren for the death of her daughter-in-law Anjana. Chandravva is satisfied with the compensation awarded to her in MVC No.287/2010. However the cross objection is only in respect of the compensation awarded for the death of Anjana.
7. The insurer has not challenged quantum in both the appeals. However what is challenged is only non-considering the contributory negligence on the part of Dandesh who has caused the accident. The reason for raising such ground is that in Ex.P.1 which is complaint dated 1.7.2007, the complainant Chandravva would state that at the relevant time of the accident the car was driven by her son in a rash and negligent manner and it is also because of his carelessness the accident has taken place.
8. With such accusation is made against Dandesh, the police after investigation have filed abated charge sheet against him also. In spite of charge sheet being filed against the driver of both the vehicles, the claimants have chosen to file claim petition only against owner and insurer of the truck to which the car has hit on its hind side. In that view of the matter, the grounds urged by the insurer is that, in the absence of the owner an
SupremeToday
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
