Basavaraj S/o Hanumanthappa V. The Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd Hospet Branch and Sujatha W/o. Late Yerriswamy Desai and Prashanth D. S/o. Late Yeriswamy Desai and Shravan D. S/o Late Yeriswamy Desai and Honnuramma D W/o. Neelakanthappa and Sangaiah S/o Panchaiah

MFA/21968/2010

AI Insights

The case involves a motor vehicle accident where the deceased, Yeriswamy Desai, was hit by a mini lorry driven by Sangaiah, resulting in his death. The deceased's family filed a compensation claim, which was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII at Hospet. The owner of the mini lorry, Basavaraj, and the insurer contested the liability and the amount of compensation. The High Court examined the validity of the driver's license and the calculation of compensation, ultimately enhancing the compensation amount and shifting the liability from the owner to the insurer based on the findings regarding the driver's license.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690505 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Motor Vehicles Act 1988
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: G N RAICHUR; Y LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: D M BANDI
• Keywords: Compensation; Liability; Motor Accident; Negligence; Fake Licence
• Section: 173(1)

Judgement Text

": 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH ON THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR M.F.A. NO. 21968/2010 (MV) C/W. M.F.A. NO.24685/2010 (MV) M.F.A. NO. 21968/2010 : BETWEEN: BASAVARAJ S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC:OWNER OF MINI LORRY BEARING REGN.NO.KA37/2392, R/O:NEAR MARUTHI TEMPLE, 4TH WARD, BHAGYA NAGAR, KOPPAL. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI : D. M. BANDI, ADVOCATE) AND : 1. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD HOSPET BRANCH,STATION ROAD HOSPET,DIST:BELLARY 2. SUJATHA W/O. LATE YERRISWAMY DESAI AGE. 41 YEARS, R/O : BELLARY ROAD, : 2 : NEAR PATEL HIGH SCHOOL HOSPET, DIST:BELLARY 3. PRASHANTH D. S/O. LATE YERISWAMY DESAI AGE. 22 YEARS, R/O:BELLARY ROAD, NEAR PATEL HIGH SCHOOL HOSPET, DIST:BELLARY 4. SHRAVAN D. S/O LATE YERRISWAMY DESAI AGE. 18 YEARS, R/O : BELLARY ROAD, NEAR PATEL HIGH SCHOOL HOSPET, DIST : BELLARY. 5. HONNURAMMA D W/O. D. NELAKANTHAPPA AGE. 79 YEARS, R/O : BELLARY ROAD, NEAR PATEL HIGH SCHOOL HOSPET, DIST : BELLARY 6. SANGAIAH S/O PANCHAIAH AGE. 33 YEARS, DRIVER OF MINI LORRY BEARING REG.NO.KA-37/2392, R/O : KINNAL VILLAGE TQ : KOPPAL, DIST:KOPPAL. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI : G N RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R5; RESPONDENT NO.6 - SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 10-12-2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.778/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-VII AT HOSPET, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.27,25,378/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT. : 3 : M.F.A. NO. 24685/2010 : BETWEEN : 1. SMT. SUJATHA W/O. LATE YERRISWAMY DESAI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/AT BELLARY ROAD, NEAR PATEL HIGH SCHOOL, HOSPET, DIST. BELLARY. 2. PRASHANT D. S/O LATE YERRISWAMY DESAI, AGE: 22 YEARS, R/AT BELLARY ROAD, NEAR PATEL HIGH SCHOOL, HOSPET, DIST. BELLARY. 3. SHRAVAN D. S/O. LATE YERRISWAMY DESAI, AGE: 18 YEARS, R/AT BELLARY ROAD, NEAR PATEL HIGH SCHOOL, HOSPET, DIST. BELLARY. 4. HONNURAMMA D. W/O. NEELAKANTHAPPA, AGE: 79 YEARS, R/AT BELLARY ROAD, NEAR PATEL HIGH SCHOOL, HOSPET, DIST. BELLARY. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI : Y LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND : 1. BASAVARAJ S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: 36 YEARS, OWNER OF MINI LORRY 407 BEARING REG. NO. KA-37-2392, R/O NEAR MARUTHI TEMPLE, 4TH WARD, BHAGYA NAGAR, KOPPAL. 2. THE MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., HOSPET BRANCH, STATION ROAD, HOSPET. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D. M. BANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) : 4 : THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:10.12.2009 PASSED IN MVC.NO.778/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-VII AT HOSPET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The case of the claimants is that on 11.02.2007 at about 11.00 p.m. when the deceased was coming back home on his two wheeler the respondent No.1 namely the driver of the mini lorry bearing Reg. No. KA 37/2392 came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. He sustained serious injuries. He succumbed to the same in the VIMS Hospital at Bellary. Hence, his wife, minor children and mother filed the instant claim petition seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs.27,25,378/- along with interest. It held the owner liable to satisfy the award. Challenging the same, the owner has filed M.F.A. No.21968/2010. The claimants have filed M.F.A. No.24685/2010. : 5 : 2. The case of the owner is that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the owner is liable to satisfy the award. The insurer has failed to establish the case that the driver of the truck did not possess a valid licence. It came to the erroneous conclusion that the licence produced as Ex.R-2 is a fake licence. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer submits that the evidence of R.W.4, who was a retired R.T.O. is clear to the effect that the alphabhet ‘F’, as mentioned in the licence stands for ‘Fresh’, and therefore, as on the date of accident he did not possess a licence. That the licence produced by him is a fake licence. Hence, it is pleaded that no interference is called for. 4. On hearing learned counsels we are of the view that appropriate relief has to be granted. So far as the question whether Ex.R-2 is the appropriate licence or not, is concerned, the evidence of R.W.4 was considered by the Tribunal. R.W.4 is a retired Transport Official. He has stated that Ex.R-2 was not issued by the R.T.O. Authority of Chennai. He was cross- : 6 : examined. He has stated that the alphabet ‘E’ mentioned in the licence stands for ‘Endorsement’ and the alphabet ‘F’ stands for ‘Fresh’. Therefore, the licence in terms of Ex.R-2 is a fake licence. The evidence of the witness was accepted by the Tribunal. It was of the view that there is nothing erroneous in the evidence that the Tribunal should disbelieve it. 5. The fact that R.W.4 was a retired R.T.O. official is undisputed. The statement made by him in the evidence is not correlated by the records. Obviously he was not in the possession of the records. It is only by examining the records that the witness could speak with regard to the fact whether Ex.R-2 is a fake licence or not. In the absence of any records, the retired R.T.O. official could not have commented on the same. When there is no effort made by the insurer to examine the existing R.T.O. official in order to have a look at the originals such an evidence cannot be accepted. It is immaterial whether the witness went on to define as to what stands for ‘E’ and ‘F’. That is wholly unacceptable. The tribunal could accept the evidence only on the : 7 : basis of the records. The same has not been done. Therefore, the evidence of R.W.4 would not come to the aid of the insurer. Under these circumstances, the insurer having failed to establish that Ex.R-2 viz., the attested copy of licence is a fake licence, the finding of the Tribunal on that count becomes unsustainable. Therefore, the liability hoisted on the owner is set aside. The insurer is held liable to satisfy the award. 6. So far as enhancement is concerned, the deceased was said to be Senior Officer in a Canara Bank. Exs.P-6 and 8 are the salary certificates for the month of January 2007. He was drawing a salary of Rs.24,719/-. A sum of Rs.1,400/- as income tax and Rs.200/- as professional tax has been deducted from the salary, namely, Rs.24,719/- less Rs.1,600/- (Rs.1,400/- + Rs.200/-) and the remaining amount comes to Rs.23,119/-. The claimants are entitled to 30% of the salary as future prospects, which shall be added to the salary to calculate the loss of dependency. Hence the same would come to Rs.23,119/- + Rs.6,935/- (30% of Rs.23,119/-) = Rs.30,055/-. Since there were four dependants, : 8 : ¼th has to be deducted towards personal expenses. The deceased was aged about 45 years, and hence, the multiplier of ‘14’ as held by the Tribunal is appropriate. Hence, loss of dependency is worked out as follows – Rs.30,055/- x 12 x 14 x ¾ = Rs.37,86,892/- 7. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium. Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards each of the three dependants towards loss of love and affection. Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards funeral and other expenses. A sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards litigation expenses. Hence, the total compensation comes to Rs.40,01,892/-. In the result, we pass the following : ORDER i) M.F.A. No.21968/2010 is allowed. The liability hoisted on the owner by the Tribunal is set aside. The insurer is held liable to satisfy the award. The amount in deposit made by the appellant is directed to be released in his favour. : 9 : ii) M.F.A. No.24685/2010 is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 10.12.2009 passed in M.V.C. No.778/2007 on the file of the M.A.C.T. – VII at Hospet, is modified in the aforesaid terms. iii) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of disbursal which shall be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE hnm/- "