IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER,
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K,pTAT_}TT
AND _ 1 L
THE HCNBLE MRJUSTTCE H,S;KEMTRT*\.HNA
M.F.A.NO. 7366/Vfl2'OO6[M'V§_ A
BETWEEN: V' 'V '
THE BRANCH MANAGER V , "
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE;"Co.._LTD..; .,
DmS1oRAL..Q'RE1CE:; UDHAKAMARDALAM{oo'IY)
TAMIL NADU NCsw.,VRERTD"~*,3Y ITS
REGIONAL"MAl'JAGE-R, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
CO.L'I'D., REGIONAL"«O*F_FE-CE', "UNITY BUILDING
ANNEXE. P §<:AE1NCA RAOROAD
BANGALORE -- 560 027* APPELLANT
' ""{BY"SR1.A;AN.'zcRISHNA"SwAMY--»ADv.)
1. ' T ,Mi_J1%:Ai.,1D1~1AR
'S/C_LA'TE THIMMEGOWDA
nOwi~AG-ED ABOUT 37 YEARS
' ~ .--..R/OSREENIVASA NILAYA
§J
. _ KIKKERE ROAD K.R.PET TCWN
' MANDYA DIST.
S RAHIM
S/ O SYED
NOW AGED AB{)UT 41 YEARS
NCL49. SUN MERE SILL SUNROCK HOUSE
UDI--IAKAMANDALAM
2
(OOTY} TAMIL NADU STATE
3. HI SHIVAKUMAR
S /O HANUMANTHAIAH
MAJOR
M/S SHIVAKUMAR AGENCIES
NO.1/16'? CMC MARKET
UDHAKAMANDALAM (OOTY),
TAMIL NADU STATE
4 MEENAKSHI
W/O N.THIMM'EGOwDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
5. NTHIMMEGOWDA
S/O SANNA NINGEGOWDA '
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
BOTH R%IDENTS'Q_F'=. '_
HERAGU VILLAGE. DUDDA_H»OELI;__ I
HASSAN TALUKANDH_£)IS1'RICT. ";._;j,R"ESPONDENTS
(BY SM:I.A.LI{}SIE§ARADA3,IEAV A ADI}: FOR C /R-- 1,
SRI.S.cIIETAN NA'G.,_--I FOR R-4 81 R6,
SRI.IvI.N.'IvIAI)HUS_IIDIeIAI-II__gADV. FOR R-2 81 R3)
THIS IS.".EIL'ED"°UNDER SECTION 173(1) OE MV
AcT,;.AGAINsT 'THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
'JIV3O.1«1.a2CIO.5'PASSEDWN MVC NO.'792/2000 ON THE EILE
O}1'«.,'I'H_VEv..}\(I1£I\/IBER, ADDL. MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA.
AWARDIM} - "COMPENSATION OF T4,20,000/- WITH
69/o'VP.A. FROM THE DATE OE PETITION TILL
'I'~}~II5'3- APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
I " " _II'IJIVAS_. DAY, N.K.PATIL J.. DELIVERED THE F'OLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the i£}S1LlI’E?.I’ is directed against the
inI1mg’I1eci commtm jIIdgIT1Ent, zmci award dated
30.]. 1.2005 passed. in MVC NG792/2000 on the fiie Of
52′
‘WM
3
the Member, Addl. MACT, Srirangapatna, awarding a
Compensation of ?4,20,000/– with interest @ 6% pa.
from the date of petition till deposit to the cIai1’riant~
respondent No.1 herein on account of the
deceased Kavitha in the road traffic aecide_nt..,\A’_: V
2. The brief facts of the case:=,are,a4.s.ffoi1oi.irs”–:.§’
The claimant c1aimed.»ti1_at
was aged about 24 years r1,i’nr1ir.n.g aigarnient shop,
which is a joint famihgwas hale and
healthy prior to the aeeident. V when
the deeeasedavvaininegiv§}ith””~0thers was travelling in the
Maruthi Ornni_Van.”‘i3’eariiag No.1/{Ami 1954 from Hassan
towards ‘Channara7{a_p.atna, on the left side of the road,
‘they___reached near Udayapura Petrol Bunk,
offending vehicle bearing No.TN–43~«A~–
jV8O0(:4§ earnexfrom the opposite direction in high speed
A ..fand”‘in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger
‘ life and dashed against the Marathi Van. Due
to which, the deceased Kavitha s1.zst.ained grievous
ii1ju’ries and suctcrunibeci to the same. On aceoum: of the
death of the deceased–Kavitha, the first respondent
X
_ deceased;
herein, brothereirylaw of the deceased. filed claim
petition before the Tribunal against the insurer_.._and
others. The T ribunal, in turn. after assessing
and documentary evidence on record allowed”the.V.sarneif —
in part awarding compensation”of”i3’él,’2.O,_;0CV0/»_»
interest at 6% pa from the date the’vpe’titj«pr§Jtill*.
realisation. The insurer has*i:il*ed the
ground that the Tribu’n~a_l was” jji1stifiedHi’n allowing
the petition filed by the .brot’Ijae_ré~in«laW of the
deceased and;’it”=:;a.:111ot be –snstain.ed..ar1d is liable to be
dismiss.ed–.as cannot maintain the claim
petition cla_i_4r1*1ing” legal representative of the
V ._Dv_.vringyythe pendency of the appeal, respondents 4
and to be the parents of the deceased, have
‘.Vfiledllllarr”application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to
it them as party respondents. The said
‘ application has been aflowed after hearing the counsel
on both sides and also taking mm consideration the fact
tliat, in the claim petition MVC i\IO.l374/2006 filed by
the parents of the deceased before the Tribiinal at
ggéw»
/ 9_.,¢«””
5
3
Hassan claiming compensation on account of the death
of their daughter~Kavitha and also on the basis of the
memo filed by the insurer stating that
No.79?!/2000 filed by the 15′ 1’€SP0T1d€1’1t
been allowed by the Tribunal and the filed” l
appeal before the High Court and therejfo4re,’:twoelairnss
petitions cannot be maintained on7.t_h”e SEt.’~.,’I1’€’i,v*C3Vev111S€_3Vl§ of
action, the said claim petition been ldisposedvfgof.
3. The learned codiisell forvithev.,a’ppellant–insurer,
Sri,A.N.Krishnaswarny,. Aiaththe v_sv’;’,i’i.;§,,t1iJitted that the
brother;~in«.~laWV”oi”-..tl:e”deceased cannot maintain the
claim petiti_or1_ “Section 166 of the M.V.Act on
accoernt of thel”deat_h__Aof the deceased who happens to be
.,.5;st.er=:i1i.,;laW contending that, the deceased, along
was running a garment shop in
[the style M/s.BaIaji Garments, which is a
V’ «farniiy business. He cannot be treated as the legal
the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal has
erred in awarding eo.mpezisat,ion to the brother-in-law.
The parents of the deceased have been permitted to
come on record as responderits 4 and 5 and therefore,
6
the mother of the deceased is entitled for compensation
and not respondent No.1 herein. He submitted that the
Tribunal has rightly assessed the income voiiltehe
I
deceased at 33,000/~ pm. He submitted;’_'”tlisst5.l.,:__b3_j_’*_
deducting 50% of the income towards”1’1»er::~.pers0na1:l4
expenses and applying the appropriates c.mti’itiipliVerl
taking the age of the mother:-*V_at_V 48 years, coirnppcnspation
towards loss of dependency__rIVi-ay be worlfied out and
further, just and reasonablefcornpensation may be
awarded towards conVe’ntiohal’ modifying the
impugned of the Tribunal.
4. The”leVar11_eld.:cotinsel for the first respondent,
_ lR.”E3»haradamvb_a,. interalia, contended by
sn.’b–stanVtiar,t’ing the impugned judgment and award as
as the Tribunal by assessing the oral
‘land document.aIy evidence and other material on record
if ll..jijhas”‘a..warded just and reasonable compensation to the
‘ first respondent on account of the death of his sister»1’r1~
if law in the road traffic accident on the ground that she
was running a garm.en1’: shop which has been put up on
.-‘/ s-:/’/”‘
(‘2
7
the basis of the investment made by the joint family
members and therefore, he is entitled for comperisat’i.o’n_.
Therefore, interference by this Court is not ~
5. The learned counsei for.;resp,oncllent,s”h.-4′
parents of the deceased, interalia’.contendled]t1iat;
matter of fact, respondents–.§”~andA.”:’3__ hadclaim ll
petition under Section.z166_.0f -th-ehl”M.V.Act’–.beiore the
Tribunal at Hassan clairnirig on account
of the death of their Kavitha as they
are the When the matter
was -l the insurer has raised
objectionshyi way.olfl,lii»lir1’g rnemo stating that the claim
peti’rion filed respondents 4 and 5 on account of the
daughter is not maintainable as the first
has also filed claim petition, on the
j same eatisellof action, in MVC l\?o.’792/2000, before the
Court and against the same, the insurance
has filed appeal before the High Court. In the
of the statements made in the memo dated 2,3.2()O7
filed in MVC No. 1374/2008 on the file of the MACT 81
FTCAI at Hassan, the etition stood dismissed.
8
Thereafter. the application flied by respondents 4 and 5
to come on record, before this Court, has been aliowed
and they are permitted to come on record. ThereforTe;–,he
submitted that respondent No.4-mother of
is entitied to compensation on account of of b
her daughter Kavitha and tkiierehyi ;
common judgment and award_ of th..e””I’rib1_V11ia1 he
modified by awarding and_u’i”jrea;sonabIe
compensation.
6. After careful co.nsi,dera.tion”of submission of
the cottnsel insurer, respondent No.1
and aiso 5, the points that arise for
consideration are «:5 A.
i} ._Wh’eth.ervt_he first respondent–brother in law of the
entitled to claim compensation on
it acicoiint of the death of the deceasedwliavitha, who
it Vi”-..happens to be his sister–in–1aw’?
‘ ii}; Whether the parents of the deceased are entitled
t.o coinpensation on account of the death of their
daughterw.K.avitha in the road traffic aeeideiit?
7′. Re. Points 1 and 2 :m
if,’ /
9
The occurrence of the accident and the resultant
death of the deceased are not in dispute. Further. the
age of the deceased and the fact that she is the sislt’er~
in-law of respondent. No.1 and daughter of
4 and 5 are not in dispute. Respondent.c1la:1rnedpl”
that she was running a garmentishopin the..nair1e’–ands .’
style of Balaji Garmeritsfiwhichlflis’ a
business, and it has been carried_oL1t”b.ased ion the
investinezot made by “t.h’e_joinjt1fainlirlyjnembers and
therefore, he being the:.brotl’1er=ir1¢_1aw oitlhe deceased is
entitled,’ to’ c.lali:.:’:1′-.. The tribunal has
entertailiedpthe “o:lf:”_.*ewrespondent No.1 and allowed
the .»eilai1ri petiti’C>f1.e.l.1..1.eo.part and awarded compensation.
Howevepiasrightly pointed out by the learned counsel
for the i1’i_st1r}}3r. the brothcr~i1’1–1aw cannot become a
‘.Vlegallheir.1oflthe deceased as it is not permissible under
V’ lfthel relevant provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and
‘ also the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules and that he is not
entitled to maintain the petition 1,IIld€1’ Section 166 of
the lVi.V. Act.
10
We find substance in the said submission of the
learned counsel for the insurer. After careful perusal of
the pleadings on record and after going through
of the impugned common judgment and
Tribunal, what emerges is that the has’
Committed error of law much lessfirnateprijal’irregular’ity is f
not assigning any valid .reasons,_land
accepted the contentions of thetirst.respondent and has
allowed the claim pe’tition.’l._ Tl;_1ere–fo’re’,’~i yve are of the
considered View that respon»de’:1t’»._No’.’1llisfriot entitled to
maintain the cvlaiifn,an’d therefore, the impugned
common judgmerit and .award of the Tribunal insofar as
it relates to””i-claimant in MVC No.792/2000 ie
brothVer:A_iI1:ia:Wof the deceased is liable to be set aside
and accordifngly set aside.
Insofar as it relates to respondents 4 and 5,
V’ lf_’pare’:.1ts “of deceased. as they have been permitted by
‘ this Court to come on record taking into consideration
the averments made in the affidavit. and also the
armexures, more partictiiariy the memo filed by the
insurer, filed aioiig with the application, as stated
/’///l
1}
supra, as already stated, their claim for compensation
due to the untimeiy death of their daughter deceased-
Kavitha in the road traffic accident is accepted ando’:th.ey
are entitied to ciaim }ust and reasonable comvper1s.atiinf_r
towards loss of estate and other conVentio_na,1_4_heads. ._
Accordingly, we re–detern1:iney.the “‘co’r.r1pensattio.,r1s.’
awarded by the tribunal towards ldssof desperidency;
taking the income of the deceVa’s.e’d at – By
deducting 50% of the._Rf’_ncome» her personal
expenses and applyingpithe japvpropriateinidltiplier of ’13’
by taiging .tiie.VVa”g:g. ‘rnother at 48 years, we award
?2,34,000’/re_’ (:»1,soo,«; x 13) towards loss of estate.
Further,’~ha?vingw-regard to the facts and circumstances
the cAase’,,:we_ deem fit to award a sum of “<'16,000/-
towards' aC.or1Ve11tiona1 heads, to meet the ends of
justice,£7Accordingiy, in at}, we award a sum of
"..jij<'f2,'5C),O(iO/- as against ?4,20,000/~ awarded by the
Tribunal. The reduction in compensation comes to
w<'t1,70,()O0/» which carries interest; at 6% pa. from the
date of the pet..itton til} rea1isat.ior1.
E")
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed
in part. The impugned common judgment and
dated 30.11.2005 in MVC No.702/20o0otyyi’isiijéfeiiy-a.o”i–
modified by awarding compensa.t:ion..4to .’respondei1t’S;p. it
and 5 instead of respondent l\io.1.’Ai’ier’ein’:
The appellant-insurer ‘to ‘lithe ”
remaining compensation nopw””d.e_terininedi’ ‘with-“interest
at 6% p.a. from the -till realisation
within four” Tribunal. The
apportionrrlent_”an’d3’m,ai1ner~ofdisbursement ordered by
Tribunal is also ‘rrfio”difiecE:.””— ‘ ‘
OutV”*.._4of_ “compensation of ?2,50,000/–,
uiwithfl _____ proportionate interest shall be
name of the fourth respondenbmother of
the any nationaiised bank/scheduled bank
for period” of three years renewable by another three
it ‘V~:if’yearsAwith liberty to respondent No.4 to withdraw the
l interest accrued on it periodically.
The remaiiiing Compensatiori ?50.000/- with
accrued interest shall be released in equal proportion to
13
respondents 4 and 5 immediately on deposit by the
insurer.
The amount in deposit by the ins1J.re_1j””sh;g_d’1:
transmitted to the Tribunai forthxwjth.
Office to draw the award aeieord-in 1 4′ V
3″L?1″)GE;
PS