Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 819
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
K. NATARAJAN, J.
Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Jyotiba Appaji Shigate - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 20655 of 2011
Decided On : 21-08-2019
S.K. Kayakamath, Adv., K. Anandkumar, Adv.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Section 166 - Rule 3,Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 - Tribunal claiming compensation - Claim petition - Anjana and when said vehicle reached Cross on Belgaum road respondent rode motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed due to which accident was occurred-said fell down from motorcycle and sustained injuries- Later she was shifted Hospital Belgaum and admitted as in-patient for During treatment she succumbed to injures claimants have spent more than towards medical expenses- deceased was working as headmistress in a Government Primary Marathi School Belavatti and was earning per month and she was also income tax Assessee- She was maintaining her entire family- Therefore prayed for awarding compensation on various grounds – Held, Case of National Insurance Company for age group above income has to be added towards future prospectus which comes Claimant being husband and earning member cannot be considered as a dependant and claimant being son of deceased alone is considered to be a dependant appellant has contended that deduction must as claimant also depending on his father who is first claimant said contention counsel for appellant/insurer cannot be acceptable - Even though claimant only depending on deceased income has been deducted towards personal expenses of deceased counsel for appellant/insurer has also argued that deceased was working as headmistress in government primary school and it is definite that she would retire from her service at age and hence split multiplier has to be considered instead of considering multiplier arguments advanced by counsel for appellant/insurer is acceptable one- appellant/insurer has contended that interest awarded by Tribunal is also on higher side and prayed for reduction of interest Tribunal by relying upon judgment of Honble Supreme in case National Insurance Company Ltd- and another has awarded interest at rate Same is retained as re-assessed compensation is more than what was awarded and restricted - Therefore rate of interest need not be reduced as contended by Insurance Company- Hence point answered against insurer and in favour of claimants - Appeal dismissed
Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points summarized with their respective references:
- Case Details: The case is National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jyotiba Appaji Shigate, decided on 21-08-2019 by the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench, regarding a motor vehicle accident compensation claim. [judgement_subject] (!) (!)
- Accident Facts: The deceased, Smt. Mangala (a Headmistress earning Rs. 30,000/month), died after falling from a motorcycle driven by the respondent (Smt. Anjana) who was riding rashly and negligently at high speed near Bokanur Cross on 29.05.2009. (!) (!)
- Claimants: The husband (Claimant 1) and the son (Claimant 2) of the deceased filed the claim petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (!)
- Insurance Company's Defense: The insurer argued that the driver held only a learner's license and was not accompanied by an instructor, claiming a fundamental breach of the insurance policy terms. They also contested the quantum of compensation, arguing for deductions for the husband's income and a "split multiplier" due to the deceased's impending retirement. (!) (!)
- Validity of Learner's License: The Court held that a learner's license is a valid driving license. Unlike four-wheeled vehicles, motorcycles do not require an instructor to accompany the learner under Central Motor Vehicle Rules, Rule 3. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Liability on Insurer: Since the driver held a valid learner's license, there was no violation of the insurance policy conditions, and the liability was correctly fastened on the Insurance Company by the Tribunal. (!) (!)
- Assessment of Dependency and Income: The Court ruled that the husband, being an earning member, is not a dependent. The son is the sole dependent. However, 50% of the deceased's income must be deducted for her personal expenses. (!) (!)
- Multiplier Calculation: The Court accepted the argument for a "split multiplier" instead of a full multiplier because the deceased was a government employee who would retire at age 60. The calculation was split into pre-retirement (age 55) and post-retirement (pensionary income) periods. (!) (!) (!)
- Re-assessed Compensation: The Court re-assessed the total compensation to Rs. 13,26,534/- (including Rs. 11,42,784/- for loss of dependency, Rs. 70,000/- for consortium, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral/transport, Rs. 15,000/- for estate, and Rs. 83,750/- for medical). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Final Award Restriction: Although the re-assessed amount was higher, the Court restricted the award to the amount already granted by the Tribunal (Rs. 12,65,731/-) because the claimants had not filed an appeal against the Tribunal's specific award. (!) (!)
- Interest Rate: The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. was retained and not reduced to 6% as argued by the insurer, given that the re-assessed compensation exceeded the original award. (!) (!) (!)
- Outcome: The appeal filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed. (!)
JUDGMENT :
K. Natarajan, J.
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award dated 04.09.2010 in MVC No.1850/2009 passed by the Fast Track Court-III and Addl. MACT, Belagavi (for short 'the Tribunal').
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and learned counsel for respondent No.2/claimant.
3. For convenience, the ranks of the parties before the Tribunal are retained.
4. The first claimant is the husband and second claimant is the son of deceased Smt. Mangala, who died in the road traffic accident, have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "the Act") before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest interalia contending that on 29.05.2009 the said Mangala was proceeding as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EB-9566 driven by respondent No.1-Smt. Anjana and when the said vehicle reached near Bokanur Cross on Belgaum-Belgundi road, the respondent No.1 rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed due to which the accident was occurred. The said Mangala fell down from the motorcycle and sustained injuries. Later she was shifted to Dr. Prabhakar Kore Hospital, Belgaum and admitted as in-patient for 10 days. During treatment, she succumbed to the injures. The claimants have spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses. The deceased was working as headmistress in a Government Primary Marathi School, Belavatti and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month and she was also income tax Assessee. She was maintaining her entire family. Therefore, prayed for awarding the compensation on various grounds.
5. In pursuance to the notice, respondent No.1 appeared through counsel and filed objections by denying the averments made in the claim petition as false. However, admitted that she is the owner of Hero Honda Pleasure motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EB-9566. The vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2. The policy was valid from 24.01.2009 to 23.01.2010. She is having valid driving licence and not violated any of the terms and conditions of the policy. If this Court comes to the conclusion for whatsoever justifiable reasons to grant the compensation, then the same may be fastened on respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against her.
6. The respondent No.2-Insurer also appeared and filed statement of objections by denying the averments made in the claim petition as frivolous and baseless and contended that respondent No.1 in collusion with the police filed a delayed complaint in order to grab illegal compensation from respondent No.2 and further taken the contention that though the deceased having sustained some accidental injuries otherwise than the involvement of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EB-9566, but the petitioners have falsely implicated the said vehicle in this case and lodged the complaint. The rider of the motorcycle was not having any licence to ride the motorcycle. Therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. However, it has taken the contention that the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioners is imaginary, exorbitant and unreasonable. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
7. Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues;
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Smt. Mangala died in Motor Vehicle accident due to rash and negligent act of rider of vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-22/EB-9566 as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so how much and from whom?
3. What order or award?
8. To substantiate the case of the claimants/petitioners, petitioner No.1 himself got examined as P.W.1 and got marked 15 documents as per Exs.P1 to P15. On behalf of respondent-Insurer
