Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1403
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Alok Aradhe, H.T. Narendra Prasad, JJ.
Manager Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Bengaluru - Appellant
Versus
Rani Jha - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 5729 of 2018
Decided On : 07-10-2020
O. Mahesh, Advocate, Gopalakrishna N, Advocate, A. Srinivasaiah, Advocate
The standard of proof in claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act is lower than in criminal or civil cases, and strict rules of evidence are not required.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Appeal - Section 173(1) - Rash and Negligent Driving - Sections 134(c), 156(c), 166 - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, including the requirements for reporting accidents and the validity of driving licenses. The court also considered the principles of assessing compensation and the applicable interest rates. The court emphasized that the standard of proof in a claim petition is lower than in criminal or civil cases, and strict rules of evidence are not required.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was involved in a road traffic accident and the claimants filed a petition seeking compensation. The insurance company appealed the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, disputing the findings on negligence, driving license validity, and compensation assessment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car, and upheld the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The court also modified the interest rate for the compensation.
Issues: The issues included the negligence of the driver, validity of the driving license, compliance with reporting requirements, and assessment of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the lower standard of proof in claim petitions, the non-mandatory nature of certain reporting provisions, and the validity of driving licenses for transport vehicles. The court also applied principles from the 'National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others' case to assess compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, with the compensation amount remaining unaltered but the interest rate being modified. The insurance company was directed to deposit the compensation amount with the adjusted interest rate.
JUDGMENT
H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. - This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the insurance company being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.04.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 05.06.2016 at about 2.00 a.m. the deceased Ujwal Dutt Jha was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing registration No.OR-02/BX-3311 from Madivala to Koramangala. When he reached near water tank junction, Koramangala, a car bearing registration No.KA-43/7809 which was being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and was working as Consultant Systems Administration at NTT Data Global Delivery Service Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore and was earning Rs.35,000/- per month and apart from that he was also doing part-time job in Web Designing and earning Rs.25,000/- per month, totally he was earning Rs.60,000/- per month. It was pleaded that the claimants have spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and obsequies ceremonies. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/- along with interest.
4. On service of summons, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded by the respondent No.1 that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It was pleaded by the respondent No.2 that the owner of the offending vehicle has not given necessary information about the accident, driver and other details as required under Section 134(c) of Motor Vehicles Act and jurisdictional police have also not forwarded the necessary case papers as required under Section 156(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further pleaded that the driver of the car was not having valid and effective driving licence but he was having only LMV and not the licence for driving passenger carrying commercial vehicle. The owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner. It was further pleaded that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased himself. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.2 brother of the deceased as PW-1, employer of the deceased as PW-2 and officer of the City Bank as PW-3 and got exhibited 24 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P24. On behalf of respondents, the owner of the car was examined as RW-1 and an officer of the insurance company was examined as RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R7. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.40,23,096/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. Being aggrieved, insurance company has filed this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the insurance company has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, after service of summons the appellant has filed the written statement stating that the insured has not given any details as required under Section 134(c) of Motor Vehicles Act and jurisdictional police have also not forwarded the necessary case papers as required
