Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 814
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
K. NATARAJAN, J.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Mahesh - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 22013 of 2009, 22012 of 2009, 21122 of 2009
Decided On : 14-08-2019
G.N. Raichur, Adv., K. Anandkumar, Adv.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act,1988 - Section 166 - Claim compensation - Claim petition - Ashok Leyland lorry bearing registration driven lorry in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to Tata Mobile Vehicle due to which died spot whereas Mahesh sustained injuries- He was shifted to Super Specialty Hospital Bellary and he was treated as inpatient and due to injuries he is suffering from disabilities and lost working capacity claimants have contended that deceased was Librarian-cum-Assistant working at HRSM Junior college and due to untimely death claimants have lost their dependency –Held, Court introduced concept of split multiplier and departed from multiplier used by Tribunal without disclosing any reason therefore - High Court has also not considered clear and corroborative evidence about prospect of future increment of deceased- When age of deceased is between and multiplier which is specified Court has laid down guidelines while deducting personal expenses application of multiplier and considering loss of future prospects - Honble Apex Court in case has not discussed about split multiplier but para has age of deceased should be basis for applying multiplier categorical observation of Honble Apex Court made shows that age of deceased should be considered for calculating multiplier - Therefore for purpose of calculating multiplier age of deceased shall be considered- Admittedly age of deceased at time of accident was at age group proper multiplier would - If income (appropriate multiplier) is taken it comes which would be loss of dependency- Therefore contention taken by insurer regarding applying split multiplier cannot be accepted and it is not applicable to this case Court in case of Magma General Insurance and others claimant being wife of deceased is entitled towards loss of spousal consortium and claimant being children of deceased are entitled each towards loss of parental consortium claimants are also entitled for towards loss of estate and towards funeral and transportation expenses- In all claimants are entitled to re-assessed compensation insurance company is directed to deposit award amount within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of judgment – Appeal disposed
JUDGMENT :
K. Natarajan, J.
Though these appeals came up for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, they are heard finally.
2. MFA Nos.22013/2009 and 22012/2009 are filed by the Insurer assailing the judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and MACT, Gangavathi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short) in MVC Nos.637/2007 and 418/2007 respectively, whereas MFA No.21122/2009 is filed by the claimants in MVC No.418/2007 passed by the same Tribunal for enhancement of compensation.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel Sri. G.N. Raichur, appearing for the Insurance Company and learned counsel Sri. K. Anandkumar, appearing for the claimants.
4. The ranking of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for brevity.
5. Respondent No.1 in MFA No.22013/2009 - Mahesh filed a claim petition in MVC No.637/2007 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), claiming compensation of Rs.24,76,500/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that was occurred on 05.01.2007, whereas the respondents/appellants in MFA No.21122/2009 filed claim petition in MVC NO.418/2007 under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,45,000/- for the death of late Siddarameshwar Hiremath, who died in the same accident. Inter alia both the claimants contended that, on 05.01.2007 at about 12.15 a.m. on Koppal-Gangavathi road, one Mahesh, claimant in MVC-7-No.637/2007 and Siddarameshwar Hiremath, husband of the 1st claimant in MVC No.418/207, while traveling in Tata Mobile vehicle bearing registration No.KA-35/M-936 from Koppal to Gangavathi, when they came near Jabbalagudda, near the land of Ayyappa Karatagi, at that time, the driver of the Ashok Leyland lorry bearing registration No.KA-40/1092, driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the Tata Mobile Vehicle, due to which Siddarameshwar died on the spot whereas Mahesh sustained injuries. He was shifted to Danamma Super Specialty Hospital, Bellary and he was treated as inpatient and due to the injuries he is suffering from disabilities and lost the working capacity. The claimants in MVC No.418/2007 have contended that the deceased Siddarameshwar was Librarian-cum-Assistant working at HRSM Junior college, Gangavathi and due to untimely death, the claimants have lost their dependency. They spent amount towards transportation and funeral obsequies and therefore prayed for claiming compensation as stated supra.
6. In pursuant to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent No.1-driver of one of the vehicle appeared but not filed any objection and respondent No.2-driver of another vehicle not appeared and placed exparte. The 3rd respondent-Insurer appeared through counsel and filed separate statement of objections denying the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and contended that the accident in question was occurred due to head on collision of both vehicle i.e. Tata Mobile Vehicle and lorry. Therefore, driver, owner and insurer of the Tata Mobile Vehicle are also necessary parties. As such, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Denying the injuries sustained by the claimant/Mahesh, his age, occupation, loss of income, and medical expenses as false, the learned counsel has further contended that the driver of the lorry was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. There is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy and also contended that the claim of the claimant was excessive and exorbitant and hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. Similarly, the insurer filed objection in claim petition, MVC No.418/2007, by denying the age, occupation and income of the deceased as false, and taken a similar contention in respect of not holding valid driving licence by the driv
