IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT
DHARWAD. _
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF MARCH 203.0"
PRESENT _ .
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTI:CE'N.'K,_P;ATI#CI'
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEEf:;"~SREEN1\{ASEv_GE3¥§XiEA:
Misceiianeous First Apnea} 10237 552906:
BETWEEN:
:,ASSTS.,._fAEV,1A
THE oRIENTAL'INSURAN'CE .'
CO.,L'I'D., ' u
HUBLIDO» - A
THROUGH ITS"REG10N'A.L.oPE1CE,
LEO SHQPP1fN'G1£}QMPLEX, "
# 44 /.45, "RE-.SIDEI'7EvCY'RQAD, _
BANG-ALCRE4Sr30_»O25;'»__ * _ ~ A
REP. Ev ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER,
SRLK. .}A.YARAM. ' APPELLANT
(BY ;SRL. NR. "PIUPPELLUR FOR B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO
AND:
'SM":'; CHAMAAIBHI
@ S_HA3_'flSHADBHI,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
WT/0. M.R.1BRAH1MSAE
.. MA-EAST.
;v£R.'RAJESAB
- AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S / 0.1%-IASANSAB MALAGI,
SMT. ZAHEERABHI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
W/ ORAJESAB MALAGI.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
HOSARITTI,
TQ. DIST.I-IAVERI.
SRLCHANNABASAPPA,
s /OBASAVANTHAPPA AGADI,
MAJOR,
RESIDENT OF
ALADAKATTI,
TQ. & DIST. HAVER1.
(OWNER OF MARUTI-II VAN
M}-I-04/AC-1655). --
MR. MUKTIYAR AHAMED,
S/OHASANSAB MELMUR1, 5 --«
MAJOR, --. '
OCC. VR'R1vATE wCi2RKER;-
SHIVAYOOESHW .'RAN.A<3=AR..,
HAVERLa . 4 *j¢'aE
(OWNER OF. MOTORCYCLE).
Tm§;.D:I$iIs,1ONA'L«MA.1~:'AGER,
" BAJAJ"'ALLI;ANZ GENERAL
' 1N's.uRANc_E L'I'D.,
VIVEKANAND-CORNER
(INSURER OF MOTOR CYCLE).
DESAI CROSS,
CLUB ROAD,
HUBLI
'{BQY'ASSRI. MADAN MOHANM. KHANNUR FOR R1-R3, R4--5
A SERVED, LEX PLEXUS FOR R6)
._",'__,_,_../
... RESPONDENTS.
healthy and was a bread earner in the family. On 06/ 12/2003 at
about 6.30 am. when the deceased and one Mukthiyar Aharnmad
Mestri were coming from Haveri to Hosaritti on a rnotorécycle
bearing No. KA~27/J–3068, the deceased was a pi11ior1–
when they came near Gandhipur i.e., Akkasar
Ornni coming from opposite direction spee_c1; uanid
negligent manner dashed against the motor ..cycle,:V.’as: a iresulltl of;
which the deceased fell down from’le«c.the motoifcycle halla, on
account of the grievous injuries sustainedyliimfléthe head and other
parts of the body, he succumbed ltolthe on the spot. On
account of the deathqof dec:eased~vlithe “respondent claimants
filed a claim” of Motor Vehicles Act
claiming cornpen_sation’o;f . 1§és;..:ji6,2<3,o0o/ ~. The said claim petition
had come up for "co_nVsidc_ra'tion before the Tribunal and the
:_'I'rl':.)unal:_j':3in5_._tturfn afte1*——-assessing the oral and documentary
evlidence =a_n'd other ~-material on file allowed the same in part
Ii"c..AA_.JVawardin§'la Rs.4,00,000/- under different heads with
llqyinterest 65fo…per annum from the date of petition till the date of
=.realisation,& The said quantum of compensation awarded by the
lV~._Tri1'bur;all disproportionate, excessive and liable to be reduced.
/
Further it is a specific case of appellant that the Maruti Omni car
was not involved in the accident. The question of fixing theliability
against the appellantvinsurer is not justifiable and ti.,j__ib~e
set aside and they felt necessitated to present this.Vappeal:.C" T
3. The principal submission thie’vv’lveiarr;ed
counsel for appellant that, the driver ofithe’
acquitted in a criminal case and the__li’Fribunal. has committed a
grave error in holding that i”C)mni~–lwas involved in the
accident due to the rash and negligenitbthe driver of said
vehicle. The accicleiitrp:ioccurre;dvandv died on the spot
cannot be when the motor vehicle
is not involve.d.ii that the Tribunal has not
justified forftxing..th’e liability on the alleged vehicle involved in
–.l?:vithoutiiifixirirratleast contributory negligence on the
par,t’ofithe_ride’r of motor cycle also. Further he submitted that
quantum’ compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on
Vlgghigher side. andhiit requires reduction by modifying the impugned
,j award passed by the Tribunal.
r9~——
charge sheet, which disclose that the Maruti ornni was involved in
the accident and on account of the injuries sustained in the
accident the deceased died on the spot. Absolutely therc_”‘is_Vno
evidence on record to show that due to the negligence”o1i..’;h’¢
of the motor bike the accident was caused. Further.uit*–i.eme1’ge”s..V’
from the record that as per motor vehicle FCp_C_)l’t::.E’X.pe_5
front right side indicator was broken and there is7Tno:’ reci’ijal”ir1.fl
Ex.P–6 with regard to the damage to left
side and Ex.P~5 seizure Panjchgananra that? Htasaadze mm
was Jdcsib MH~04/AC~1655 mp fled 2.555%
mmodmoacig it clearly ;_dis’-;1:oses:;._that:”the”Atroifitportion of the Maruti
Van was the of the vehicle. Et is the
crucial clinching’ on record that it has been
rightly accepted andpappreciaiteud and recorded finding of the fact
‘.liability’on”‘the appe11ar1t–Ensurer wherein the Maruti
Oznni Therefore the specific contention taken by
vi”=~the learned for appellant cannot be sustainable nor has
.. gotiany substance and hence i as to be rejected at the threshold.
6. Further the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of
deceased at the rate of Rs.3,000/– per month. He is aged about 30
years and by profession he is a mason and deducted 1/ 3*$3′”of the
amount towards personal expenses and applied the
multipiier and awarded a reasonable compensationtiunderpiloss.
dependency and also a just and reasonablecompensation vuindzer
conventional heads. The amount awarded iunderv ‘c–onufenti«o.n’a1
heads is inadequate, but the clainiants haife .notufi1ed”.._anyw c”:ross–‘*
objection. Therefore the interferengce by-.thi_S Cou’1*t..doe’s not call
for. Hence, having regard to the. facts piggrdiiicircurnstances as stated
above the instant app_e’al_.is dis”rriiss:ed'”a_se.deiroidi merits. Ordered
accordingly!
The appeiiantginsurer”i.si”‘_.’directed to deposit the remaining
coVmpensa§ltion’~amour1t.with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of
petition tili thegdatevof realisation within a period of for weeks from
the datethof receipt a’ copy of the judgment and award.
The appor_ti4k.:nment order the Tribunal is undisturbed.