Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1076
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
V. Srishananda, J.
Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Lakshmi - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 22387 of 2009; Miscellaneous First Appeal (Crob) No. 865 of 2013
Decided On : 11-06-2020
M.K. Soudagar, Advocate, Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, Advocate, B. Sharanabasawa, Advocate, M.K. Soudagar, Advocate
The burden of proof lies with the Insurance company to establish the authenticity of the driving license, and courts may consider legal principles for assessing compensation, including future prospects and loss of consortium.
Headnote:
Insurance Company - Motor Vehicle Accident - MACT No.431/2008 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly focusing on the requirement of a valid driving license for the driver of the offending vehicle. The court also considered the legal principles established in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 and Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Nanu Ram and others, (2018) ACJ 2782, regarding assessment of compensation and future prospects. The court's decision was influenced by the burden of proof on the Insurance company to establish the driving license as a fake document and the application of legal principles for assessing compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor vehicle accident where the driver of a lorry collided with another vehicle, resulting in the death of the driver. The claimants sought compensation for the loss of their breadwinner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Insurance company failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license. The court also allowed the cross objection for enhancement of compensation based on legal principles established in relevant case laws.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the driver's license and the claimants' request for enhancement of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof lay with the Insurance company to establish the driving license as a fake document. The court also applied legal principles for assessing compensation, including future prospects and loss of consortium.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the Insurance company was dismissed, and the cross objection filed by the claimants was allowed in part. The Insurance company was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within six weeks.
JUDGMENT
V. Srishananda, J. - Being not satisfied with the judgment and award dated 12.03.2009, passed by the MACT-VII, Hospet in MVC No.431/2008, the Insurance company has preferred this appeal and the claimants have also filed the Cross Objection No.865/2013 for enhancement of compensation.
2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under :
It is contended in the claim petition that on 01.03.2008 at about 5.00 a.m. that C. Surendrakumar was proceeding near Gangavati cross on his vehicle and at that juncture the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA- 08/B-1499 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Surendrakumar's lorry, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is further contended that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent of driving of the offending vehicle bearing No.KA-08-/B-1499 and the claimants have lost their bread winner and sought for award of compensation.
3. On issuance of notice, respondents No.1 to 3 have appeared before the tribunal. While the respondent No.3-Insurance company filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and other respondents did not choose to file any written statement. In the written statement of the Insurance company, there was also a contention as to the nonjoinder of the necessary parties.
4. There was specific contention that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license and as such, the Insurance company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. In order to establish the claim petition averments, the first claimant got examined herself as PW1 and produced 6 documents, which are marked as Ex.P1 to P6.
6. On behalf of respondents, the Administrative Officer of Insurance company Sri. K. Shama Sunder examined as RW1 and he has produced the documents and in support of their contentions they have been marked as Ex.R1 to R4.
7. On cumulative consideration of the material on record, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred on account of the negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle and assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month and deducted 1/3rd of the said amount towards personal expenses of the deceased and has taken the notional income at Rs.36,000/- and applying multiplier of 17 as the deceased was aged about 26 years and awarded the compensation to a sum of Rs.6,12,000/- on the head of loss of dependency.
8. The tribunal also granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and awarded the compensation on other heads, in all, the tribunal as awarded compensation of Rs.6,69,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment of compensation amount against the respondents.
9. The learned counsel for the Insurance company vehemently contended that the tribunal failed to notice the probative value on the documents marked on behalf of Insurance company especially Ex.R2 and Ex.R2(a). It is the specific contention of the Insurance company that the RTO Office at Vuyyuru, Krishna District was established in the year 2000 and as such, the driving licence said to have been possessed by the deceased vehicle bearing No.4173/VYR/1995 could not have been issued and it is a fake document. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.
10. The learned counsel for the Insurance company further contended that the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and in view of the Full Bench judgment of this court in MFA No.30131/2010, the Insurance company may be ordered to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
11. Per contra, Sri. Y. Laxmikant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/cross objectors had also filed the cross objection and vehemently contended that the tribunal rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the Insurance company and s
