Back
- 1 -
MFA No. 102148 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100074 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102148 OF 2018 (MV-D)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100074 OF 2018
IN MFA NO.102148/2018:
BETWEEN:
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO. 101,102 AND 103, FIRST FLOOW, CENTRE POINT,
NCM HUBLI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADV.)
AND:
1.
SMT. USHA D. R. W/O GANESHACHARI
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KUNDOORU VILLAGE,
TQ: HONNALLI, DIST: HAVERI-577217.
2.
ANANYA G. D/O GANESHACHARI
AGE: 6 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: KUNDOORU VILLAGE,
TQ: HONNALLI, DIST: HAVERI-577217.
SINCE MINOR, BEING REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL MOTHER AND MINOR GUARDIAN
- 2 -
MFA No. 102148 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100074 of 2018
RESPONDENT NOI.1.
3.
CHINMAYI G. D/O GANESHACHARI
AGE: 4 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: KUNDOORU VILLAGE,
TQ: HONNALLI, DIST: HAVERI-577217.
SINCE MINOR, BEING REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL MOTHER AND MINOR GUARDIAN
RESPONDENT NOI.1.
4.
JAYAMMA S/O SHIVANNACHAR
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: KUNDOORU VILLAGE,
TQ: HONNALLI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.
5.
SMT.LAKSHMI R. W/O RAJAPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NGR LAYOUT, ROOPENA AGRAHARA,
BOMMANAHALLI, POST: MADIVALA,
BENGALURU-560068.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH S HULMANI FOR C/R1-R4, ADV.;
NOTICE TO R5 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.03.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.1102/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL,
RANEBENNUR,
AWARDING
COMPENSATION
OF
Rs.16,26,461/- WITH INTEREST AT 7.5% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
IN MFA CROB.NO.100074/2018:
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. USHA D R W/O. GANESHACHARI
AGE:27 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
2.
ANANYA G D/O. GANESHACHARI
- 3 -
MFA No. 102148 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100074 of 2018
AGE:6 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
3.
CHINAMAYE G D/O GANESHCHARI
AGE:4 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
4.
JAYAMMA S/O. SHIVANNACHAR
AGE:61 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
ALL ARE R/O. KUNDOORU VILLAGE,
IN HONNALLI TQ, DIST:DAVANAGERE,
NOW AT MARUTHI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, TQ:RANEBENNUR,
DIST:HAVERI-581115.
…CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. G S HULMANI, ADV.)
AND:
1.
MRS LAKSHMI R W/O. RAJAPPA
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O. NGR LAYOUT, ROOPENA AGRAHARA,
BOMMANAHALLI, POST:MADIVALA,
BENGALURU-560068.
2.
THE ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL
INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
NO.101,102, and 103,
1 FLOOR, CENTER POINT,
NCM HUBBALLI-580020.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.102148/2018 IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RULE 2 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 15.03.2018 PASSD IN MVC NO.1102/2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL.MACT, RANEBENNUR,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
- 4 -
MFA No. 102148 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100074 of 2018
THIS APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
The accident, which is said to have occurred on
02.06.2016, involving the motor bike bearing registration
No.KA-17/Y-8869 and the lorry bearing registration No.KA-
05/C-6607 resulted in the death of Sri. Ganeshachari and he
died
on
08.06.2016.
Consequently,
the
dependants
of
Sri.Ganeshachari filed M.V.C. No.1102/2016 on the file of the
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur (for
short, ‘the Tribunal’).
The claim petition was seriously contested by the
insurer and the insurer had taken the stand that the accident
as alleged by claimant has not occurred; and that the lorry
insured with the insurer is not involved in the accident. To
substantiate its contention, the insurer heavily relied upon the
discrepancies with regard to the mentioning of timing of the
accident as shown in the FIR and those shown in the medical
records.
- 5 -
The contention of the insurer was not accepted by
the Tribunal, and the Tribunal, by impugned judgment and
award, fastened the liability to pay the compensation on the
insurer and awarded compensation of Rs.16,26,461/- under the
following heads.
1
Loss of dependency
Rs.
14,49,000/-
2
Towards loss of estate
Rs.
15,000/-
3
Towards loss of consortium
Rs.
40,000/-
4
Towards love and affection
Rs.
40,000/-
5
Towards transportation of the dead
body and funeral expenses
Rs.
15,000/-
6
Towards medical expenses
Rs.
67,461/-
Total
Rs.
16,26,461/-
The
Tribunal
has
awarded
interest
on
the
compensation at the rate of 7.5%per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
The insurer is in appeal challenging both liability as
well as quantum. The claimants have filed cross-objection
seeking enhancement of the compensation.
- 6 -
6.
Heard
Sri.
S.K.Kayakamath,
learned
advocate
appearing for the appellant-insurer and Sri. Girish S.Hulimani,
learned advocate appearing for the claimants.
7.
On behalf of the appellant-insurer, the learned
advocate
Sri.
S.K.Kayamath
would
urge
the
following
contentions:
•
Though the accident is said to have taken place on
02.06.2016, the complaint is lodged on 05.06.2016.
•
Though the lorry is not involved in the accident, the
same is falsely implicated in the charge sheet. There is no
reference to the involvement of the lorry in the complaint
and the seizure mahazar. The charge sheet is filed
against the driver of the lorry in collusion with the owner
and the claimants.
•
The accident is said to have taken place at 11.15
a.m. on 02.06.2016. The out-patient card issued by the
SSIMS Hospital, Davanagere, would reveal the time of the
accident as 00:00 hours on 02.06.2016. The out-patient
record reveals that the accident occurred on 02.06.2016
- 7 -
at 14:43 hours. The discrepancies would cast serious
doubt about the alleged accident.
•
No
eyewitness
is
examined
to
prove
the
involvement of the lorry in the accident.
•
No action is initiated by the police on 02.06.2016
despite receiving the information from the Hospital as per
Ex.P.8.
•
The timing of the discharge of the deceased
mentioned in the discharge certificate would also disclose
discrepancy relating to date of discharge as such the
collusion is apparent.
8.
Alternatively, the learned counsel for the insurer
submitted that the award of compensation on various heads is
also on the higher side and the same has to be scaled down.
9.
The learned counsel appearing for the claimant-
cross objectors would submit the following points:
•
The accident occurred on 02.06.2016 and as the
injured sustained grievous injuries, his brother had taken
him to the hospital and was attending the deceased.
Thus, there is a delay in lodging the complaint and the
- 8 -
same was lodged on 05.06.2016. The delay in lodging the
complaint is properly explained and the same is rightly
accepted by the Tribunal.
•
The hospital to which the deceased was admitted
had immediately sent a report relating to the Medico-
Legal Case to the police on the same day. However, there
was a confusion relating to the jurisdictional police station
and accordin
