Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 950
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN, J.
M/S. Cholamandalam Ms Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Smt. Mariyamma & Ors. - Respondents
M.F.A.NO.6356 of 2014 (MV) c/w M.F.A. CROB NO.38, of 2015
Decided On : 07-09-2017
For the Appellants : Sri. Y.P. Venkatapathi, Adv.
For the Respondents:Sri. Dilip Kumar, Advocate, Smt. Suma Kedilaya Adv., Sri. V. Padmanabha Kedilaya, Adv.,
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of a specific endorsement in a valid LMV license does not absolve the Insurance Company from liability to pay compensation.
Headnote:
LMV License - Compensation Claim - Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (AIR 2017 SC 3668) - The court discussed the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation in the absence of specific endorsement in the valid LMV license. The court referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) and held that if the driver of the offending vehicle has a valid driving license for driving a LMV, there is no legal requirement that the driving license should also contain a specific endorsement for driving a particular kind of vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability to pay the compensation on the plea that the valid driving license for LMV did not bear any specific endorsement for a particular kind of vehicle.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants filed a claim petition for the death of Mr. Basavasetty in a road accident. The learned Tribunal granted compensation to the claimants, which was appealed by the Insurance Company. The main contentions were regarding the validity of the driver's license and the calculation of loss of dependency.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver had a valid LMV license and the absence of a specific endorsement did not absolve the Insurance Company from liability. The court also recalculated the loss of dependency and enhanced the compensation for loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the driver's license, calculation of loss of dependency, and the adequacy of compensation for loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the legal requirement for a specific endorsement in a valid LMV license, as established in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (AIR 2017 SC 3668). The court also considered the principles of dependency and adequacy of compensation in similar cases.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the insurance company was partly allowed, and the cross objection filed by the claimants was also partly allowed. The claimants were entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,97,000/- along with interest.
1. Both the Appeal, and the Cross-Objection, arise out of the judgment and award dated 11.06.2014, passed by the V Additional District Judge and MACT., My sore, whereby for the death of Mr. Basavasetty, the learned Tribunal has granted the claimants, a compensation of Rs.5,41,000/-, along with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, and the cross-objection filed by the claimants are being decided by this common order.
2. According to the claimants, on 12.08.2012, around 1.45 p.m., Mr. Basavasetty was traveling in an auto-rickshaw, bearing registration No.KA-45-3707, along with other passengers. While the auto-rickshaw was going on the K.R. Nagar Hosahalli Road, near K.E.B. Iswara Nagar, the driver of the auto-rickshaw drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner. When the driver suddenly applied the brakes, the auto-rickshaw turned turtle; Mr. Basavasetty sustained severe head injuries; he died on the spot.
3. Since the claimants lost the sole bread earner of the family, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to support their case, Basavasetty’s wife, Mrs. Mariyamma, examined herself as P. W. 1, and examined her brother-in-law, Mahadevasetty, as P. W. 2. She also submitted twelve documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company also examined two witnesses, and submitted eleven documents. After appreciating the evidence produced by both the sides, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, the Appeal by the Insurance Company, and the Cross-objection by the claimants.
M.F.A. NO.6356/2014
4. Sri. Y. P. Venkatapathi, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has raised the following contentions before this Court:
Firstly, the driver of the auto-rickshaw did not have a valid driving license as the driving license was not endorsed for the specific kind of vehicle being driven by him. Thus, the liability of having to pay the compensation could not be fastened upon the Insurance Company.
Secondly, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 happened to be the married daughters of the deceased. Hence, while calculating the loss of dependency, their existence cannot be taken into account. For, after their marriage, they would be financially dependent on their husband, and not on their father. Hence, the learned Tribunal was not justified in calculating that the deceased would have spent only 1/4th of his income upon his personal expenses. In fact, it should have been taken as 1/3rd. Therefore, the ‘loss of dependency’ needs to be recalculated by this Court.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents has raised the following pleas before this Court:
Firstly, the driver of the auto-rickshaw had a valid LMV driving license. The issue whether a specific endorsement with regard to driving a particular kind of vehicle is legally required or not, is no longer resintegra. For recently, in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (AIR 2017 SC 3668) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that there is no such legal requirement of having a specific endorsement on a valid driving license for driving a LMV vehicle. Thus, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability of paying the compensation ostensibly on the ground that the driver did not have a specific endorsement on his valid LMV driving license.
6. As far as the second contention with regard to the financial dependency of the three daughters is concerned, the learned counsel for the claimants has frankly conceded, and in the opinion of this Court rightly so, that they cannot be considered as dependents on the finances of their father. Thus, the learned Tribunal could not have considered them as financially dependent on their father.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the part
