2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 56210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JULY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON’BLE Mrs. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
MFA NO. 3703/2021 (MV-D)
C/W
MFA NO. 2753/2021 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.3703/2021
BETWEEN :
1.
SRI.SUJIT KUMAR SEN
S/O LATE HARAN CHANDRA SEN
AGED 56 YEARS
2.
SMT. PUSPA RANI SEN
W/O LATE HARAN CHANDRA SEN
AGED 78 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.700/1, SARAT CHATARJEE ROAD
SHIBPUR, HAORA CORPORATION
HAORA, WEST BENGAL -711 102
2ND PETITIONER PREVIOUSLY
R/AT: NO.32, SOUTH BAKSARA
VILLAGE ROAD, HAORA CORPORATION
BAKSARA, HAORA
WEST BENGAL - 711 110
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H. ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
AND :
1.
ICICI LOMBARD GEN INS CO LTD
NO.121, THE ESTATE BUILDING
9TH FLOOR, DICKENSON ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
REP BY ITS MANAGER.
2.
SRI.AABHARANAM
S/O KOTIM REDDY ANITHA
AGE: MAJOR
R/AT FLAT NO.5-A
DOYAN HABITAT APPT
SRINAGAR COLONY
HYDRABAD, TELANGANA - 500 013.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.02.09.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2532/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDGE
AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, SCCH-6,
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.2753/2021
BETWEEN :
M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.121, THE ESTATE BUILDING
9TH FLOOR, DICKENSON ROAD
M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE -01
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
- 3 -
AND :
1.
SUJIT KUMAR SEN
S/O LATE HARAN CHANDRA SEN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
2.
PUSHPA RANI SEN
W/O LATE HARAN CHANDRA SEN
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.700/1, SARAT CHATARJEE ROAD
SHIBPURM, HAORA CORPORATION
HAORA, WEST BENGAL 711 102.
3.
AABRHRANAM
S/O KOTIM REDDY ANITHA
AGE MAJOR
R/AT FLAT NO.5-A
DOYAN HABITAT APPT
SRINAGAR COLONY
HYDRABAD, TELANGANA - 500 013.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH.M.H, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W, V/O/DATED 01.07.2022)
THIS MFA FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 02.09.2020, PASSED IN MVC
NO.2532/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE IV-ADDITIONAL JUDGE
AND ACMM., COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-
6), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.54,02,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
THESE MFA’s COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
B.VEERAPPA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
- 4 -
The appeal in MFA No.3703/2021 is filed by the
unfortunate father and grand father of the deceased Sayandeep
sen for enhancement of compensation and MFA No.2753/2021 is
filed by the insurance company for reduction of compensation.
Both these appeals are filed against the impugned judgment and
award dated 02.09.2020 passed in MVC No.2532/2018 on the
file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru
awarding total compensation of Rs.54,02,000/- with interest at
9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
2.
It is the case of the claimants that on 30.03.2018 at
about 1.50 p.m the deceased Sayandeep sen was traveling in a
Ford Eco sport car bearing registration No.AP-09-CT-0300 from
Biligirangana Betta towards Bengaluru and reached near
Thungani gate, Kanakapura-Bengaluru Main Road, NH-209 road,
Kanakapura Taluk, Ramangara District. At that time, the driver
of the said car without observing any traffic rules and regulations
has driven with rash and negligent manner endangering to
human life, dashed against the road side stone and toppled the
- 5 -
car, as a result of which the accident occurred and the deceased
sustained severe injuries all over the body and was succumbed
to fatal injuries on spot. He was shifted to Kanakapura
Government Hospital, wherein, the doctor was declared that
brought dead and after postmortem examination, the dead body
was handed over to the claimants. Thereafter, the claimants
took the dead body to their residence Haora, West Bengal and
conducted funeral and obsequies ceremonies by incurring
expenses of Rs.3,00,000/- including transportation charges.
2.
It is the further case of the claimants that on account
of sudden and sad demise of the deceased in the said accident,
the claimants have undergone deep mental shock, pain and
suffering. It is further case that prior to the accident, the
deceased was hale and healthy, studying B.B.A., (Finance and
International
business)
final
year
at
Christ
University,
Bannerghatta Road Campus, Bannerghatta Road, Hulimavu,
Bengaluru and was distinction student in the college. The
deceased was appointed as a trainee-business development at
Samast Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in campus selection conducted by
- 6 -
the Christ College, wherein, the salary was fixed at Rs.45,000/-
per month and Rs.5,28,000/- as annual salary. The deceased
also received employment offer letter dated 11.03.2018 as full
time permanent employee. The deceased had bright future and
prospects in the aforesaid company and he contributed his entire
income to maintain his family members. The jurisdiction police
have registered a criminal case against the driver of the Ford Eco
sport car bearing registration No.AP-09-CT-0300 under Sections
279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. The 1st respondent being the owner
of offending vehicle and 2nd respondent being the insurer, both
the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the claimants. Hence, the claimants have
sought for compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- with cost and
interest.
3.
In response to the notice, the respondent No.1 has
remained absent and was placed exparte. Respondent No.2-
insurance company filed the written statement denying the
averments made in the claim petition and contended that the
driver of the car bearing registration No.AP-09-CT-0300 was not
- 7 -
holding valid and effective driving license on the date of the
accident and was not qualified for holding or obtaining such
driving license and further not satisfied the requirements of the
Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The respondent
No.1 knowing fully well that the driver did not possess valid and
effective driving license and willfully entrusted the vehicle to the
said driver. Thereby, the owner of the vehicle committed breach
of terms and conditions of the policy, hence, 2nd respondent is
not liable to pay compensation.
4.
Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal
framed the following issues:
"1.
Whe