Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S.G.PANDIT, GEETHA K.B.
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Its Divisional Manager, Represented By Its Authorized Signatory – Appellant
Versus
Kamlamma @ Kamalavva, D/o. Yallavva Hosamani, Since Deceased By Her Lrs.- Kadappa Kamalavva Hosamani – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
GEETHA K.B., J.
Both these appeals are filed challenging the judgment and award dated 01.09.2023 passed in MVC No.576/2021 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Dharwad (for short, ‘Tribunal’).
2. MFA No.104712/2023 is filed by the insurer challenging negligence and quantum of compensation and MFA No.101238/2024 is filed by the claimants praying for enhancement of compensation under Section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’).
3. The parties would be referred with their rankings as they were before the Tribunal for convenience and clarity.
4. The claimants who are the mother and unmarried sister of deceased Mahadev have filed the claim petition in respect of accidental death of Mahadev that had taken place on 03.04.2021 at 01.35 p.m. involving car bearing Reg.No.MH-09/BB-1883 and car bearing Reg.No.MH-03/BE-3860 at Ankola-Yallapur road.
5. The case of claimants is that deceased Mahadev was driving the car bearing No.MH-09/BB-1883 and was coming from Dharmastala towards Ankola with his colleagues in that car; at that time, the car bearing No.MH- 03/BE-3860 came from opposite side, dashed against the car and caused the accident
The court established that the deceased was not negligent in the accident and recalibrated the income for compensation to Rs.30,000, leading to a total compensation of Rs.43,61,000.
The court affirmed the validity of awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, adjusting income and future prospects, while rejecting insurer's claims of contributory negligence and liability....
The court affirmed the application of the multiplier method for calculating compensation in motor vehicle accident cases, ensuring just compensation for dependents.
The court affirmed that compensation should account for future prospects with a 50% addition for a permanent employee and rejected claims of contributory negligence due to insufficient evidence.
Contributory negligence must be substantiated by evidence; lack thereof necessitates full liability of the insurer, not apportionment of compensation.
An employee dies in harness even in normal course, due to illness and to maintain the family of the deceased one of the dependents may be entitled for compassionate appointment but that cannot be ter....
The court affirmed the principle that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be just and fair, emphasizing the need to consider future prospects and proper income tax deductions.
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
