IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3221» DAY or SEPTEMBER. 2010
BEFORE T jj
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE _
Miscellaneous First Appeal No....5_148O7of' 'A V'
Between
1 . Smt. Arunaksha_mrna',' .V
Aged about 29 years, "
Household Work__.
2. Thippesha. ~ r
Aged about 7 Years".
3. Lavanya.' i A _ - .... A.
'
Apfiellaht N'c'}:_'i isvfifife.
Apps11ant",No4§2. is~.s"on and
Appe1.1ai1t N033 is.._daughter
of Late Obei1app a»~ Oblaiah.
'Appellants. VN--o.2v_a1'1d 3 since
V' _{ Minors fep:esen'ted by their
'friend mother
2 , _ S_1'Ii.t. -Arunakshamma,
V' residents of
A. o ~..s«Gujjoena;:a11i vmage.
Ka.duif'..--"£'a1uk.
" Chjkmagalur District.
" . _ " Appellants
(syfsri. V N Jagadeesh (Noe). 1~1.v. Ramachandra, Adv.)
pun
ix.)
Sn Nataraja,
S / O Maridevaru @ Rajappa,
Aged about 36 Years,
Driver of MIDI lorry/Van.
No.KV/19-A--3697,
R/O. Dinnekere Halh,
Arasikere Taluk,
Hassan District.
RDL N0.1043/06-07 va._1id _ =
from 27.08.2006 to 26-._V0'8.,_2007' ._ '
Issued by RTA, * '
Hassan.
Abdul Rehman ' «E
S/O. Khalandar Sab, C
Aged 55 Years, _ ~ '
Owner of van Nb.K=i/PU' 19'sA;3ss
R/O, M«a1ebe_ttu, _i3_e1ava,--t Post, .
Mooclabidzji; ' .
T1A"1'e_ Branch 0 "0.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd,
; 'II Floor,'-Ram Bhavan Complex,
" ' Kodia1bai1"'Po.s_t,«'
Man.g.a}pre -- 03.
... Respondents
.(13.3'f'iSriV.01\;'a1t3Rfishnappa, Adv. for R1 and R2,
Sri.
'V-. «Hegde Mulkhand & O. Mahesh, Adv. for R3)
This MFA is filed U/8173(1) 0fMV Act against the
A jndgment & award dated 31/1/2008 passed in MVC
"No.25/07 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track
Court & Member, MACT, Kadur, partly allowing the
'Claim petition for compensation & seeking enhancement
of Compensation.
6?
This appeal coming on for Hearing, this day, the
Court. delivered the following:
JUBGMENT
This appeal is by the _
enhancement of compensation awarded.'byv' T*ribniia1"~ it
and also for fastening liability a'gai1ji'st :the.insi1re19fof the
offending Vehicle.
2. For the sake of_Conv{§nienee parties are referred to
as they are referred to
3. Briefof theease H »
1* 1 lwhenfdeceased Obalaiah was
goingV"xby._ Milestone on Singatagere --
Belaiir road" in Taluk the mini lorry bearing
19 A 3697 came in a rash and
'V'nle'gli_gent-4haaiiner and dashed against him, as a result
he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was
A shifted' to Government Hospital, Kadur where he
"s_L1ro-'cumbed to injures. Hence, his wife and children
dfiled a claim petition before MACT, Kadur seeking
compensation of Rs.20.00,000/-- and the Tribunal has
$5
awarded compensation of Rs.4.67,000/~ (wrongly
mentioned as Rs.5,67,000/~ ) with interest. at 60/9 p.a.
and fixed t.he liability on the owner of
vehicle.
4. The points that arise for consideration it
Whether the Triilbunallisll jVustiiliejd..,_Hir1_:3 nae
fastening the liability"'-vagainst 'th_e'vw.in_su'rer"'of the
offending vehicle and "-..whether «the quantum
compensation awardeid is"j~u;st and proper or does it
call for enhance"ment'.é? is
5. insurer of the
offending: driver of the
'driving licence as on the
date 'of the the claimants have failed to
prove that Natairajag, Sic Maridevau and Nataraja, S/o
' V' Maidevarii @ Raj'appa in Whose name the driving licence
is not one and the same person. Therefore
the has rightly held that the owner of the
AA offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation. Besides
owner of the offending vehicles did not choose to
xlcontest the matter before the Tribunal and be was
placed ex parte. Since. the claimants have failed to
.
establish the identity of the driver as Nataraj, S/o
Maridevaru and Natara}, 8/0 of Maridevaru @ Rajappa
is one and the same person by examining th’e”‘o.wn’er.
This Court may remand the matter and
Tribunal to give a finding to the’ effect ‘Nataraja., if
S/0 Maridevaru and Nataraja;,__
Rajappa is one and the lafterl’
affording opportunity to the . ._
6. Learnedpp -.r,_jxouI1-:se’1~:.. V the claimants
submits 2 application before
the ‘ifribuna.lf”1″orI petition to change
the of sit’ respondent from “Nataraja,
son of lliajappaf to ‘«…’l–~l\Eataraja, son of Maridevaru @
Thatvapplication was resisted by the insurer
V vehicle by filing statement of objections.
.lT,hereafterV_ the Tribunal by it’s detailed order allowed
the “said application on 27.12.2007 and permitted the
‘.elaimants to amend the cause title of the claim petition.
__§Accordingly it was amended and the name of the father
%.
of the driver was shown as Nataraj, S/0 Maridevaru @
Rajappa. The said order of the Tribunal has become
final as the same has not been challenged’:Vibvfttie
insurer of the offending vehicle. Therefore
has committed an error in fixing “iiabihtyg
owner of the offending Vehicle on the
driver has no valid lieeneethas on*ofV the it
accident. He of
Compensation awarded_V’b:3_(V also on the
lower side the appeal by
enhancinggjspp fixing the liability
against h~e__offe–nding vehicle.
‘7. It ~not:e’d«.:_that the Tribunal while allowing
theaiamdeiidmerit’application has observed in para 12 of
pd =it’Ts’ ‘ord.e’r _4a”S.Vdu~nder:
A very important to note that, 21″ respondent
z best person to say whether ls’ respondent is
the son of Maridevaru or @ Rajappa but, he
remained absent and placed ex parte. 181
respondent himself examined as DW–2 and his
deposition shows, his father’s name is shown as
Maridevaru @ Rajappa. More than that, Ex. I) 1, 7
@s
and D 8 copies of summons and bail bonds in
C.C. No.1291/2006 show, name of father___ of 18′
respondent is Nataraja S / o Rajappa. So Vlieatcis to
the definite conciusion that, name of theiiof
15″ respondent–Nataraja is Maridjevarauth ‘
Rajappa.”
If the insurer of the offendingvidazethicle
that Nataraja, S/o. Marideeyaru and S / 0. V
Maridevaru @ Rajap.pa ‘Voersons they
should have 2 and cross
examine hiin effect. ‘proper to expect a
widow and’ lost their husband
and exercise. It could have
been ‘Adorie so’-if ‘ho finding of the Tribunal to
that”cffect. of the circumstances stated above
r1o_._reason for this Court to remand or ask the
to-‘establish the identity of the driver of the
ofi”‘end.Ving ‘yehicle. In that View of the matter the finding
* of__the”’s1’ribuna1 that the driver of the offending vehicle
not have valid license and owner of the offending
‘hvehicle is liabie to pay compensation is liable to be set
aside. Accordingly it is set aside.
as
8. Now I have to see whether quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is j1igs’t.:ii.and
reasonable or does it call for enhancement < » 4
9. Claimants in support of””‘theyir ~ly4lclallilIjnlth–e it
deceased Obalaiah aged aboutl’«v13.tl.A_Vyears’
Rs.l0,000/– by doing’ “leiioeptll
examining the first –l_gha\ll/e lr1’ot”li)roduced
any documents. 35 years and
year accidentilfias could easily be
assessed of his income has to
be bersonal expenses. The
multiblierllapplicalbgie age group of deceased is 16.
If so ” loss of yydeoenldency works out to Rs.4,60,080/–
2/3 X 12 X 16) and it is awarded as
A — awarded by the Tribunal.
.10, In addition to this claimants are entitled for
it ‘e~_R’s.2l0,000/~ towards loss of consortium, Rs. 20,000/–
fie:
towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10.000/- towards
loss of estate and Rs.l0,000/- transportation of-dead
body and funeral expenses. In all the
entitled for a total compensation of
11. Accordingly the appeal -an
judgement and award of the4_Trih’una} is
extent stated herein above’.’v’Vd”Tlhe entitied
for total compensation’ against
Rs.4,67,000/ ~l'{s.5,67,000/– )
awarded at 6% p.a. from
the d_ate_ (if till’ the date of realisation.
12.; ‘ The ilnsurer of the offending vehicle is directed to
tjhezventire compensation with interest Within
._tirro.lArn’oi3.tVhs;’fi’om the date of receipt of a copy of this
jul”dgment.””:Out of the compensation Rs. l,50,000/– each
i ‘iwiat_h proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in
in the name of the claimants in any nationalised or
it “scheduled bank for a period of 3 years in respect of
claimant no.1 and 12 years in respect of second and
IE5,
10
third Claimants renewable once in three years with a
right to first Claimant to withdraw interest periodically
and remaining compensation is ordered to
in favour of first claimant.
N0 order as to cost.
Vb/–