Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 922
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
S.G. Pandit, V. Srishananda, JJ.
Bapu - Appellant
Versus
M/s. V M Matere Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 104420 of 2018, 100003 of 2019
Decided On : 01-06-2020
Subhash J Baddi, Advocate, Umesh C Ainapur, Advocate, S.S. Beturmath, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of jurisdiction issues being raised at the earliest point of time and the application of legal principles from previous judgments to determine compensation amounts.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Act - Compensation - 166 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a judgment and award passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi in MVC No.1240/2015. The claimants sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, while the Insurance Company challenged the validity of the judgment and award.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim and that the income assessment of the deceased was not erroneous. The Court modified the award and allowed the claim petition by awarding a total compensation of Rs.22,98,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal, Income assessment of the deceased, and entitlement for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent piece of legislation and that hyper-technical approach in jurisdiction matters cannot be appreciated. It also emphasized the importance of raising jurisdiction issues at the earliest point of time. The Court applied legal principles from previous judgments to determine the income assessment of the deceased and arrived at a modified compensation amount.
Final Decision: The Court modified the award passed by the Tribunal and allowed the claim petition by awarding a total compensation of Rs.22,98,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization.
JUDGMENT
V. Srishananda, J. - Both these appeals are arising out of one and the same judgment and award dated 24.09.2018 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in MVC No.1240/2015.
2. Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for parties heard finally and appeals are taken up for final disposal.
3. Appeal in MFA No.104420/2018 is filed by the appellants, who are the claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, while appeal in MFA No.100003/2019 is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the validity of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
4. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under:- The appellants in MFA No.104420/2018, who are the claimants, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.85,00,000/- with interest inter alia claiming that they are the father, mother and step-mother of deceased/Vishal Bapu Sutar, who lost his life in road accident occurred on 25.01.2015 at about 9.15 a.m., when he was proceeding on Honda-Dio motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-14/CT-1706 near Vadant Society, Moshi Pradhikaran, Pune and the dumber bearing No.MH-14/CP-1969 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said motorcycle. He sustained fatal injuries in the accident and was shifted to Shanta Dnyaneshwar Hospital, Pune, where he succumbed to the injuries.
5. It is the case of the claimants that they have spent Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenses. The deceased was aged about 24 years and was working as a mechanic engineer in a private company at Pune and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. They also contended that having regard to the educational qualification the deceased possessed, there was a bright future for the deceased person and he would have earned a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per month.
6. After notice, the respondent/insurance company and the owner of the dumper appeared before the Tribunal and they filed their statement of objections. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the offending vehicle denied the petition averments and also stated that in the event the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the accident has occurred on account of negligent driving of the driver of the dumper, the liability should be saddled on respondent No.2, who is the insurer of the said offending vehicle.
7. The respondent No.2/Insurance company has also denied the petition averments including the age, salary, future income of the deceased and the expenses incurred for funeral etc. The insurance company has also contended that there was contributory negligence to the extent of 50% on the part of the deceased and the driver of the dumper did not held a valid driving licence and they have violated the policy conditions and thus denied the claim.
8. In order to establish the case of petitioners, the 2nd petitioner Smt. Sunita W/o. Bapu Sutar got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked in all 21 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-21. On behalf of respondent No.2/insurance company, one Ganesh S/o. Pralhadrao Deshmukh was examined as R.W.1 and relied on the documentary evidence marked at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6.
9. The Tribunal after giving anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties allowed the petition in part and award a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- in all with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
10. The learned counsel for the insurance company has contended that the accident having occurred at Pune, the Court at Belagavi did not have jurisdiction to try the claim petition and therefore, the impugned award needs to be set aside. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the insurance company has contended that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal regarding the income of the deceased in a sum of Rs.15,000/- per mon
