Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 48880
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.6994/2015 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.9295/2015 (MV)
IN MFA No.6994/2015
BETWEEN:
LEGAL MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE,
MAGANURU COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
NEAR UNION PARK,
CHITRADURGA,
NOW REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
RGIC, NO.28, EAST WING,
5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1.
LAKSHMI P.M.,
W/O N.Y.THIPPESWAMY,
NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
2.
BHAGYALAKSHMI,
D/O LATE N.Y.THIPPESWAMY,
NOW AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
3.
NANDAN KUMAR,
S/O LATE N.Y.THIPPESWAMY,
NOW AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,
4.
YOGANANDA
S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O D.S.HALLI VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
5.
JAGANNATHAPPA,
S/O NINGAPPA,
AGE:MAJOR,
R/O KOVERAHATTI VILAGE,
IMANGALA HOBLI,
HIRIYUR TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DIST-577 501.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-5;
NOTICE TO R-6 IS DISPENSED V/O DTD 26.11.2019;
R-2 AND R-3 ARE MINORS;
R-1 TO R-3 AND R-5 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R-4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
10.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.108/2014 ON THE FILE OF
3
THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL
MACT-5, CHITRADURGA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION
OF RS.4,40,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 7.5% P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
IN MFA No.9295/2015
BETWEEN:
1.
LAKSHMI P.M.,
W/O LATE N.Y.THIPPESWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
2.
BHAGYALAKSHMI
S/O LATE N.Y.THIPPESWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
MINOR
REP. BY HER NATURAL MOTHER
AND GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1
3.
NANDAN KUMAR
S/O LATE N.Y.THIPPESWAMNY,
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,
MINOR
REP. BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER AND
GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1
4.
YOGANANDAPPA,
S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O D.S.HALLY VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501.
(NOTE: HAMPANNA EXPIRED ON 17.5.2013.
THE OTHER APPELLANTS HEREIN ARE THE LR'S
4
OF THE HAMPANNA. HENCE, FILING OF
APPLICATION TO BRING LR ON RECORD
WILL NOT ARISE)
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B.PRAMOD ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
JAGANNATHAPPA,
S/O NINGAPPA,
OWNER OF AUTO RICKSHAW,
REG. NO.KA-16/A-2758,
R/O KOVERAHATTI VILLAGE,
IMANGALA HOBLI,
HIRIYUR TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501
2.
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE,
MANGALURU COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
NEAR UNION PARK
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
V/O DTD 16.06.2017, NOTICE TO R-1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
10.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.108/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL
MACT-5, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION
FOR
COMPENSATION
AND
SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
5
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, AND THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer
in MFA No.6994/2015 and learned counsel for respondent
No.2 in MFA No. 9295/2015 and also the learned counsel
for the claimants in MFA No.6994/2015 and MFA No.
9295/2015.
Both appeals are arising out of judgment and
award dated 10.06.2015 passed in MVC No.108/2014 on
the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional
MACT-V, Chitradurga. In terms of the impugned judgment
and award, the Tribunal acted under Section 163(A) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and awarded a compensation of
Rs.4,40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.
from the date of petition till the date of actual payment.
There is no dispute on the fact that the
accident occurred on 01.03.2013 and the vehicles involved
6
in the accident are autorickshaw and motorbike. The rider
of the motorbike died in the accident. Police after
investigation filed a charge sheet against the deceased.
The dependents of the deceased filed a petition under
Section 163(A) claiming compensation against the owner
and the insurer of the autorickshaw. The Tribunal applying
the second schedule to the Section 163(A) of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 has awarded the compensation referred
above. The insurer is in appeal questioning the liability,
the claimants are in appeal questioning the quantum.
The learned counsel for the insurer would
contend that the deceased himself was responsible for the
accident and the legal representatives of the deceased are
not entitled to claim compensation against the insurer and
the owner of autorickshaw as there is no negligence on the
part of the driver of autorickshaw.
Learned counsel for the appellant would place
reliance on "Ningamma Vs. United India Insurance
7
India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Sadananda Mukhi"
reported in 2009 ACJ 998.
6.
The
learned
counsel
for
the
claimants-
respondents submits that the claim petition filed by the
dependents of tort feasor is maintainable under Section
163(A) against the insurer and owner of the another
vehicle involved in the accident without alleging negligence
against the driver of the said vehicle in terms of the ratio
laid down in the case of "United India Assurance
Co.Ltd., Vs. Sunil Kumar and Anr" reported in AIR
2017 SC 5710. In the instant case, the charge sheet is
filed against the rider of the bike who died in the accident.
Accident
occurred
on
account
of
collision
between
autorickshaw and the bike. No allegation of negligence is
levelled against the driver of autorickshaw. Claim petition
is filed claiming compensation against owner and insurer of
autorickshaw. In terms of Section 163A, the claimants
8
need not plead and prove negligence against the
respondents. Therefore, the petition is maintainable.
7.
Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant and
respondents
who
have
also
filed
appeals
seeking
enhancement of compensation would submit that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower
side. The Tribunal ought to have taken higher income.
8.
The Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant
would
submit
that
the
deceased
left
behind
five
dependents and taking an income of Rs.40,000/- p.a. as
per the schedule which was introduced in 1994, would
cause great injustice to the dependents of the deceased.
The counsel for the appellant would also urge that interest
at the rate of 7.5% awarded by the Tribunal is on the
lower side and the Tribunal should have awarded a higher
rate of interest to meet the ends of justice.
9
9.
This Court has considered the rival contentions
and perused the materials on record.
10.
There is no dispute on the fact that the
claimants claimed compensation as per the structured
formula enumerated under Section 163(A) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. Since the Motor Vehicles Act, 1968
contemplates payment of compensation based on the
structured formula, the same has to be as per the second
schedule. In exceptional cases there can be a departure
from the second schedule. The Trib
