Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
K. NATARAJAN, J.
The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Meenakshi and Others – Respondents
Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 20104, 20105, 20887 of 2010
Decided On : 26-09-2019
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Motor Accident Claims – Claim of compensation - Whether petitioners proves that alleged accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Alfa three wheeler bearing and as a result sustained fatal injuries and died while under treatment - Whether petitioners entitled for compensation - Whether petitioners entitled for compensation If so for what amount and from whom - Whether Tribunal is not justified in fastening liability on insurer even though insurer disputed identity of deceased and involvement of vehicle - Whether claimants-appellants in MFA are entitled for enhancement of compensation - Whether judgment and award passed by Tribunal calls for interference - Claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of for death of one alleged to have been died in a road traffic accident whereas claimants in of 2006 also field a petition claiming compensation of -for death of her very same road traffic accident inter alia contending that was proceeding on a Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing registration as a pillion rider belonging to one when they were returning to their native at that time a goods rickshaw Mahindra Alfa-three wheeler bearing registration came in a rash and negligent manner near land of half a kilometer away from and dashed against motorcycle – Held, As regards liability of insurer in respect of negligent and accident caused by driver of 3 wheeler goods auto claimants in both cases have examined themselves independently as PW-1 before two different Tribunals - PW-2, who is rider of motorcycle and an eyewitness to accident independently has let-in evidence before both Tribunals and has corroborated evidence of PW-1 in both cases - Ex.P-1-complaint Ex.P-2-FIR, Ex.P-3-spot, Ex.P-4-inquest Ex.P-5-seizure of vehicle Ex.P-6-postmortem report Ex.P-7-MVI report Ex.P-8-charge sheet were marked in MVC - Similar documents were also marked in Exs.P-1 to P-8. By considering evidence on record both oral as well as documentary both Tribunals have independently given findings that accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of goods tempo due to which a pedestrian died and thereafter vehicle went and dashed to motorcycle of PW-2 wherein pillion rider also died - Two deaths have taken place in said accident - Therefore both Tribunals have rightly held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of goods auto and though insurer disputed validity of driving license of driver of vehicle and respondents themselves produced driving license and insurance policy which were marked as documents on behalf of respondents respondent No. 1 being owner of vehicle and second respondent being insurer is liable to pay compensation to legal representatives of deceased in both claim cases – Court propose to consider - Per month as income of deceased - As per judgment of Humble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Supreme Court income shall be considered towards future prospects of deceased - This would be loss of dependency - As per law laid down Humble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance first petitioner being wife of deceased is entitled to a sum of - Towards spousal consortium and petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to a sum of - Each towards loss of parental consortium and for a sum of - Towards loss of estate - Claimants are not entitled for compensation under head transportation and funeral expenses since dead body is said to be cremated by police – Appeal are dismissed
JUDGMENT :
K. NATARAJAN, J.
1. Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos.20104 of 2010 filed by the insurer whereas MFA No. 20887 of 2010 filed by the claimants assailing the judgment and award dated 07.09.2009 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', for short) in MVC No. 2422 of 2007.
Another appeal in MFA No. 20105 of 2010 is filed by the insurer assailing the judgment and award dated 19.05.2009 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saundatti, in MVC No. 1978 of 2006.
2. Since all these appeals arise out of the very same accident but judgment delivered by different Tribunals, they are clubbed together in order to avoid repetition of facts and law.
3. Heard the arguments of the counsel for the insurer as well as the claimants.
4. Rank of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for convenience.
5. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short) claiming compensation of Rs.20,90,000/- for the death of one Yallappa Mahadevappa Mannikeri, in MVC No. 2422 of 2007 alleged to have been died in a road traffic accident whereas the claimants in MVC No. 1978 of 2006 also field a petition claiming compensation of Rs.24,25,000/-for the death of her son-Umesh Kariyappa Pujari in the very same road traffic accident inter alia contending that on 11.05.2006, Umesh Kariyappa Pujari was proceeding on a Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing registration No. KA.24E-8974 as a pillion rider belonging to one Dyavappa Ayyappa Meti and when they were returning to their native Haralakatti village, at that time, a goods rickshaw Mahindra Alfa-three wheeler bearing registration No. KA.24.3529 came in a rash and negligent manner near the land of Chikkaraddi, half a kilometer away from Hooli village and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to which, the pillion rider and the rider on the motorcycle fell down and sustained grievous injures and Umesh Kariyappa Pujari died on the spot. Prior to dashing to the motorcycle, the driver of the autorickshaw is said to have dashed to a pedestrian namely Yallappa Mahadevappa Mannikeri, who was in search of his missing buffaloes and thereby caused the death of two persons namely Yallappa Mahadevappa Mannikeri and Umesh Kariyappa Pujari. Hence, two separate claim petitions were filed before two different Tribunals seeking compensation on various heads.
6. In pursuance to the notice, respondent No. 1-owner of the vehicle remained absent and was placed exparte.
Respondent No. 2-insurer appeared and filed statement of objections contending that the petitioners have falsely involved the vehicle in collusion with the first respondent. The person who died in the accident is not Yallappa Mahadevappa Mannikeri. The relationship between the petitioners and the deceased who died in the accident was disputed. Further, denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and quantum is also exorbitant. Further contended that the driver of the goods auto was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
7. Based upon the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues in MFA No. 2422 of 2007 as under:
2. Whether the petitioners entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom?
3. What award or order?
Whereas in MVC No. 1978 of 2006 the first respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle appeared and filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the petition as false and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
