Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1066
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. SOMASHEKAR, J.
Divisional Manager Shriram General Ins Co Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Riyazunnissa - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 3940, 7636 of 2015
Decided On : 17-06-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Pradeep B, Adv., M.V. Maheswarappa, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases based on negligence, income of the deceased, and legal principles established in relevant case laws.
Headnote:
Negligence - Motor Vehicle Accident - MVC No.570/2012 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the negligence of the driver of the autorickshaw and lorry, compensation under various heads, and the legal principles established in National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Pranay Sethi and MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. NANU RAM. The court modified the judgment and awarded compensation of Rs.10,40,150/- to the claimants.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a judgment by the Tribunal in MVC No.570/2012, involving a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of the deceased. The claimants sought enhancement of compensation and challenged the finding of negligence against the driver of the autorickshaw.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver of the autorickshaw was negligent and fixed the compensation at Rs.10,40,150/- with interest. The court also directed the Insurer to deposit the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the offending lorry.
Issues: The issues involved the negligence of the drivers, quantum of compensation, and apportionment of liability between the Insurer and the owner of the offending lorry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the negligence of the driver of the autorickshaw, the settled guidelines in the Lok Adalath Chart, and the legal principles established in National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Pranay Sethi and MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. NANU RAM to determine the compensation.
Final Decision: The court modified the judgment, awarded compensation of Rs.10,40,150/- to the claimants, and directed the Insurer to deposit the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the offending lorry.
JUDGMENT :
K SOMASHEKAR, J.
1. These appeals are heard and disposed of together in view of the fact that both the appeals arise out of the same judgment rendered by the Tribunal.
2. Mfa 7636/2015 is preferred by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 08.01.2015 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.570/2012 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as with a prayer to set aside the finding of the Tribunal fixing 30% negligence on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw bearing No.KA-30/4722 and thereby directing the Insurance Company to only deposit 70% of the compensation awarded with interest.
MFA 3940/2015 is preferred by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 08.01.2015 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.570/2012 fixing the negligence against the driver of the lorry at 70% when the driver of the autorickshaw was solely responsible for the accident, as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. The factual matrix of the appeals is as under:
It is stated in the claim petition that on 3.3.2012 at about 10.00 a.m., when the deceased Tajpeer S/o. Babasab was proceeding in an autorickshaw bearing Regn.No.KA-30/4722 towards Jail Circle from Durgigudi driven by its driver slowly and carefully, at that time, the first respondent in MFA 7636/2015 / driver of the offending lorry bearing Regn.No.MH-19/Z- 1598 had come from Nanjappa Hospital in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the said auto in which the deceased was traveling. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple injuries on both legs, left hip bone, right and left fibula and fracture of malleolus bone of right foot and was treated at Nanjappa Hospital Shivamogga and thereafter at Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore and thereafter at Yenepoya Hospital, Mangalore, where he was treated as an in-patient till his death on 16.05.2012. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and was working in a private office as an Assistant and also doing other works and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. His family members were wholly dependent on his income for their livelihood and due to his untimely death they having lost their bread earner of the family, filed a claim petition against the respondents seeking compensation.
4. In pursuance of issuance of notice, the owner as well as driver of the offending lorry as well as owner and driver of the autorickshaw remained absent and were placed exparte. The petition was contested by the Insurer of the autorickshaw and insurer of the offending lorry. The Insurer of the offending lorry contended that the driver of the lorry did not possess a valid driving licence and the owner of the said lorry did not possess valid transport permit to ply the vehicle and further, the driver of the autorickshaw did not possess a valid driving licence. Further, that the deceased himself had driven the auto without any driving licence and the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. Hence, it was contended that he was not liable to pay any compensation.
The Insurer of the autorickshaw though admitted that the said autorickshaw was insured with it, however, stated that the liability was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Further, he denied all the averments in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the petition.
Based upon the contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues. In order to establish their case, petitioner no.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 435 documents as per Ex.P1 to P435. The Legal Officer of 3rd respondent - appellant in MFA 3940/2015 was examined as RW1 and got marked documents as per Exhibits R1 to R8. The sixth respondent - Insurer of autorickshaw got marked the policy of the autorickshaw as Ex.R4. The Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and on an evaluation of or
