Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 2067
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.G. PANDIT, J.
Senior Manager Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
P. Adam Ismail – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 3962, 3963, 3964, 3965, 3966, 3967, 3968, 3969, 3970, 3971 of 2012
Decided On : 30-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
O. Mahesh, T. Sandesh Shetty, M.E. Nagesh.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, 163-A , 2(21) , 10(2)(d) and 149 - Claiming compensation for the death - Accident - Whether the Insurer is liable to indemnify the owner to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants in MVC - Whether Tribunal ought to have considered deduction as provided under Schedule II of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act - Whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle - It is is intended by provision of Act - Whether vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit - Appellant Insurance Company is in appeal against common judgment and award passed to and on file of Fast Track Court, Mangalore Dakshina Kannada and MACT, Mangalore, by liability is saddled on Insurer - Filed by the parents of deceased - Master Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, was aged 7 years as on death and was a student of 2nd respondent - was filed by the parents of the deceased - Master Hafeez under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, who was aged 8 years as on the date of death and was a student of 2nd respondent - was filed by the parents of the deceased - Miss Shambreena under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, who was aged 9 years as on the date of death and was a student of 2nd respondent - MVC No.1323/2008 was filed by the parents of the deceased - Kumari Ramlath @ Jameela under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for death of deceased, who was aged 17 years as on the date of death and was working as coolie in the 2nd respondent – Held, deceased in all the claim petitions are minors aged between 7 to 10 years, who are the students of 2nd respondent - School. Any amount of compensation awarded to the parents would not bring back the love and affection of their children. Furthermore, any amount of compensation would not be adequate, when compared to pain and suffering, the parents have to undergo because of the death of minor children. Human life cannot be measured only in terms of money - Compensation that would be granted is not for loss of dependency or for loss of future prospects, but for loss of life or termination of life - Pain and suffering caused on account of death of minor child would continue throughout the life of the parents. In that view of the matter, it requires that adequate, reasonable and just compensation is to be awarded - claimants in these appeals would be entitled for compensation much more than what is awarded - There is no appeal or cross-objection by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of present cases, the question of deduction as contemplated under Schedule II to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act would not arise that the common judgment and award - MFA Nos.3962/2012 to 3964/2012 and MFA Nos.3968/2012 to 3971/2012 are dismissed
JUDGMENT :
S.G. PANDIT, J.
1. The above appeals arise out of one and the same accident, hence with the consent of learned counsels for all the parties, all the appeals are taken up for hearing together and disposed off by this common judgment.
2. The appellant - Insurance Company is in appeal against the common judgment and award dated 10.02.2012 passed in MVC Nos.1270/2008 to 1272/2008, MVC Nos.1323 to 1325/2008 and MVC Nos.1637 to 1640/2008 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Mangalore Dakshina Kannada and MACT, Mangalore, by which the liability is saddled on the Insurer.
3. MVC No.1270/2008 was filed by the parents of deceased - Master Afzal Abdul Rahiman, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, who was aged 7 years as on the date of death and was a student of 2nd respondent - School.
4. MVC No.1271/2008 was filed by the parents of the deceased - Master Hafeez under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, who was aged 8 years as on the date of death and was a student of 2nd respondent - School.
5. MVC No.1272/2008 was filed by the parents of the deceased - Miss Shambreena under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, who was aged 9 years as on the date of death and was a student of 2nd respondent - School.
6. MVC No.1323/2008 was filed by the parents of the deceased - Kumari Ramlath @ Jameela under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, who was aged 17 years as on the date of death and was working as coolie in the 2nd respondent - School.
7. MVC No.1324/2008 was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased -Smt. Saramma under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, who was aged 40 years as on the date of death and was working as coolie.
8. MVC No.1325/2008 was filed by the Mother of the deceased - Kamalaksha Salian under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, who was aged 32 years as on the date of death and was working as electrician in the 2nd respondent - School.
9. MVC No.1637/2008 was filed by the parents of the deceased - Master Museer @ Ismail under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, who was aged 4 years as on the date of death and was a student of 2nd respondent - School.
10. MVC No.1638/2008 was filed by the parents of the deceased - Baby Fathimathul Museena under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, who was aged 6 years as on the date of death and was a student of 2nd respondent - School.
11. MVC No.1639/2008 was filed by the parents of the deceased - Baby Aysha Suhana under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, who was aged 6 years as on the date of death and was a student of 2nd respondent - School.
12. MVC No.1640/2008 was by the parents of the deceased - Baby Fathimath Haseena under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, who was aged 7 years as on the date of death and was a student of 2nd respondent - School.
13. The common grievance of the claimants is that on fateful day of 14.8.2008 the deceased and other children of 2nd respondent - School were traveling by School Mini Bus bearing No.KA.37.3493 towards 2nd respondent - School. As the driver of the Mini Bus was driving the vehicle in high speed in a rash and negligent manner, he lost control over the vehicle and Mini Bus fell into flooded Palguni River due to which 7 children and 3 major persons lost their life. Claiming compensation for their death, the above stated claim petitions are filed.
14. On issuance of notice, the 3rd respondent - Insurance Company appeared
