Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 770
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
J.M.Khazi, J.
Bheembai – Appellant
Versus
Shrikanth – Respondent
MFA No. 201226/2021 (MV)
Decided On : 10-01-2023
S.S.Aspalli, Advocate, Harshavardhan R.Malipatil, Advocate
The liability of the insurance company in cases where the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving license, as interpreted from Sec. 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and legal precedents.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Sec. 181 - Sec. 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act - Pappu & Ors vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr., (2018) 3 SCC 208 - National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others,(2017) 16 SCC 680 - Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram And Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was involved in a road accident and the petitioners sought compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal partly allowed the petition granting compensation, but the petitioners appealed for higher compensation and to hold the insurance company liable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compensation granted by the Tribunal was higher than what the petitioners were eligible for, and therefore, they were not entitled to any enhancement. The court also held that the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
Issues: Quantum of compensation, liability of the insurance company, and entitlement for enhancement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the compensation based on the deceased's income, loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and loss of estate and funeral expenses. The court also relied on the interpretation of Sec. 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and previous legal precedents to establish the liability of the insurance company.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, directing the insurance company to pay the compensation as quantified by the Tribunal together with interest and recover the same from the owner.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation and also fixing the liability on the owner and thereby exonerating the insurance company from payment of compensation, appellants who are petitioners before the Trial Court have come up with this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the wife, mother and siblings of deceased-Ramesh. On 10/11/2015 deceased-Ramesh was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-32-Y-2903. At around 11:30 p.m. when he was opposite to Gurupadeshwar temple of Manna Ekheli on Muttangi-Madaragi road, a Ape Goods Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-32-C-0694, driven by its driver in a rash or negligent manner came and dashed against the motorcycle of deceased. He sustained grievous injuries. While undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Musheerabad of Secundrabad, he died on 13/11/2015.
3.1 Deceased was aged 25 years, earning Rs.12,000.00 per month. Petitioners were dependents on him. As owner and insurer respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
4. Before the Tribunal respondent No.1 remained ex parte.
5. Respondent No.2 appeared and filed written statement, denying the age, occupation and income of the deceased and that petitioners were dependent on him. Deceased contributed to the cause of accident, but in collusion with the police, a false case is registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. Though the offending vehicle was covered by a valid policy, since the driver was not holding a valid licence, it is not liable to indemnify the owner. It has sought for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed necessary issues.
7. Petitioner No.2 has got examined herself as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to 7 are marked.
8. On behalf of respondent No.2, RW.1 is examined and Exs.R1 to 9 were marked.
9. Vide the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal partly allowed the petition granting compensation in a sum of Rs.21,70,500.00 with interest @ 6% per annum and directed respondent No.1 to pay the same on the ground that at the time of accident, the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. The details of the compensation granted are as under:
10. During the course of argument, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating respondent No.2/insurance company on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. Respondent No.2 has not examined the RTO and failed to produce documents to prove that there is violation of policy condition. The Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence solely on the ground that charge-sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sec. 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu & Ors vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr., (2018) 3 SCC 208. respondent No.2 may be directed to pay the compensation and recover the same from respondent No.1.
10.1 So far as quantum is concerned, learned counsel for petitioners submitted the income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs.12,000.00 per month as against Rs.9,000.00 and prays to allow the appeal.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment and award and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
12. Heard arguments and perused the records.
13. Having regard to the specific grounds urged in the appeal, it is necessary to examine whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or it calls for interference by this Court under the following various heads.
14. Loss of dependency: Though the petitioners claim that deceased was aged 25 years, in the absence of evidence to prove the same, based on medical records the Tribunal correctly taken deceased to be coming in the age group of 26-30
