Back
2021 Supreme(Kar) 1022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Alok Aradhe, Hemant Chandangoudar, JJ.
Mrs. Rekha Charistable Maben W/o Late Naveen Udaya Kumar and ors. - Appellants
Versus
Mr. Muhammed Kunhi B S/o Hameed and ors. –Respondents
M.F.A. No.3632 of 2019 (MV-D)
Decided On : 31-05-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri Ravishankar Shastry G., Adv.
For the Respondent:Sri B.S. Sachin, Advocate
The main legal point established is the requirement for the insurance company to prove the lack of a valid permit to absolve liability, and the application of principles of future prospects and loss of dependency in determining compensation.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Assessment - 166, 173(1)
Fact of the Case:
The appeal sought enhancement of compensation for a fatal accident under the Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased, a swimming coach, was killed in a collision with a rashly driven car. The claimants filed for compensation, which was initially awarded at Rs. 7,30,000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company failed to prove that the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit at the time of the accident. It also assessed the deceased's income and determined the compensation to be Rs. 17,60,000, along with interest at 6%.
Issues: The issues included the liability of the vehicle owner to pay compensation and the quantum of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company's failure to prove the lack of a valid permit absolved it from liability. It also considered the deceased's income and applied the principles of future prospects and loss of dependency to determine the compensation.
Final Decision: The court modified the judgment of the Claims Tribunal and awarded compensation of Rs. 17,60,000, holding the insurance company liable to pay the amount.
JUDGMENT :
Hemant Chandangoudar, J.
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. in MVC No.1583/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 29.07.2016, the deceased Naveen Udaya Kumar was proceeding as a rider in a motorcycle from Kotekar Beeri side towards Thokkottur side. When he reached to a place called near Adka Bhagavathi Bus Stop, Someshwar Village, Mangalore Taluk, a Innova Car bearing Registration No. KL/60- E0799, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.
3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 52 years at the time of accident and was working as a Swimming Coach (Master) at Prestige School, Jappinamogaru, Mangaluru and at Jai Hind Swimming Club, Mangaluru and was earning a sum of Rs.24,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that the accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the Innova car by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- along with interest.
4. The Insurance Company filed written statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive. The Insurance Company also denied that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. The respondents examined Sri P Narasimha Prabhu, Deputy Manager of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and got exhibited documents namely Exs.R1 to R3. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Innova car. It was further held that as a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.7,30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.9,500/- per month and in any case, the same ought to have been taken at Rs.24,000/- per month as per Exs.P13, 14 and 15. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not making an addition to the tune of 25% to the income of the deceased on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157. It is further submitted that the sums awarded under the heads ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’ are on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. He further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation since no credible evidence is placed before the Tribunal by the Insurance Company so as to substantiate its claim that the owner of the offending Innova Car did not have valid permit to ply the vehicle in question as on the date of accident.
7. The 2nd respondent – Insurance C
