Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B. Veerappa, M.I. Arun, JJ.
United India Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Gayathri - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 6657 of 2016, 4991 of 2017
Decided On : 24-06-2020
L. Sreekanta Rao, Advocate, G. Ravishankar Shastry, Advocate, Ravishankar Shastry G, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident caused by rash and negligent driving.
Headnote:
COMPENSATION - MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - [MVC No.1745/2014] - [Sections 168 and 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988] - The court awarded total compensation of Rs. 27,42,600 with 6% interest from the date of the petition till realization. The court found that the deceased died in a road traffic accident due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle, and the claimants were entitled to compensation. The court modified the judgment and award made by the Tribunal, increasing the compensation from Rs. 23,28,200 to Rs. 27,42,600 with interest at 6% per annum. The insurance company was ordered to deposit the remaining compensation amount within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants, wife, and children of the deceased, sought compensation for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident. The deceased was a pillion rider on a motorcycle that crashed due to the rider's rash and negligent driving, resulting in the deceased's death. The claimants relied on the deceased's income for their livelihood and sought compensation of Rs. 30,00,000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimants proved the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident and were entitled to compensation. The court awarded total compensation of Rs. 27,42,600 with 6% interest from the date of the petition till realization.
Issues: The issues framed by the Tribunal included the proof of the accident and the entitlement to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and found that the claimants were entitled to compensation due to the deceased's death in a road traffic accident caused by rash and negligent driving. The court modified the compensation amount based on the evidence and legal provisions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company for reduction of compensation and allowed the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. The court modified the judgment and award made by the Tribunal, increasing the compensation from Rs. 23,28,200 to Rs. 27,42,600 with interest at 6% per annum. The insurance company was ordered to deposit the remaining compensation amount within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment.
JUDGMENT
B Veerappa, J. - Mfa No.6657/2016 is filed by the Insurance Company for reduction of compensation and MFA No.4991/2017 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, against the judgment and award dated 15.06.2016 made in MVC No.1745/2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, MACT-II, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, awarding total compensation of Rs. 23,28,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
2. It is the case of the claimants that the claimants are the wife and children of deceased Sathyaraj @ Sathyanarayan. On 01.02.2014, one Ramesh S. Rai was riding the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-19/ED-0717 in which the deceased was traveling as a pillion rider and were moving from Kodekkal bridge side towards Perla side. At about 9.00 pm, when the motor cycle reached Perla junction, the rider took turn in order to go towards Bajal Veeranagar side, but lost control and dashed to the stone wall by the side of the road and fell into 10 feet deep ditch by the side of the road. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was shifted KMC Hospital, Mangaluru, where he succumbed to the injuries. After conducting the post mortem, the body was handed over to the claimants who performed the obsequies ceremony by spending more than Rs. One lakh.
3. It is further case of the claimants that the jurisdictional police registered a criminal case against the rider of
the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-19/ED-0717. It is stated by the claimants that the deceased was aged 27 years at the time of his death and was working as a Manager in Prashanth Wines, Maidan Cross road, and was getting salary of Rs. 16,000/- per month. All the claimants were depending on the income of the deceased for their livelihood and due to the untimely death, the claimants lost love, affection and support to the family. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by its owner who is the 1st respondent before the Tribunal. It is contended that the 1st respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the motor cycle, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the claimants sought compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs).
II. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE INSURER
4. The 1st respondent, inspite of service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed written statement, denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant, arbitrary, baseless, speculative and the claim petition has been filed by suppressing the real facts. It is further denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by its rider and contended that it was due to negligence on the part of the deceased. It is further contended that the motor cycle was insured with the 2nd respondent subject to terms and conditions as to use of the vehicle and as there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. The 2nd respondent also denied the age, avocation, income and also the relationship of the deceased with claimants and sought to dismiss the claim petition.
III. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIBUNAL
5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the petitioners are able to prove that on 01.02.2014 at about 9.00 pm while the deceased Sathyaraj @ Sathya naraniana, S/o Chandra @ Chandrayyayya Achar was proceeding as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing Reg.No. KA-19/ED- 0717, from Kodekkal bridge side towards Perla side with one Mr. Ramesh S. Rai, when they reached near Perla junction, the rider of the above said motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner took right turn of the vehicle in order to go towards Bajal Veeranaga
