Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2239 (KAR)

Puttaiah v. Sumathi Major

2020-11-11

NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

body2020
JUDGMENT Nataraj Rangaswamy, J. - This is an appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fast Track Court and MACT at Arkalgud in MVC No.358/2008 as well as the liability imposed on the owner of the goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-09-2694 to pay the compensation. 2. The claimants are the father, mother and siblings of the deceased Rangaswamy who was aged 22 years during the year 2007. The claim petition discloses that the said Rangaswamy was engaged by a person to load ginger on to a goods lorry bearing registration No.KA-09-2694. On 16.04.2007, when the said lorry was proceeding on Bannur-Konanur road, the driver of the lorry drove it negligently, lost control and fell into the tank. The said Rangaswamy died at the spot. It is claimed that the said Rangaswamy was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and was maintaining the family. The claimants contended that as a result of the accidental death due to the actionable negligence by the driver of the lorry, the claimants had lost the earnings of the deceased on whom they were dependent. The claimants contended that they had spent Rs.20,000/- for funeral and other obsequies and hence, they filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-. 3. The insurer contended that the claimants are not entitled for compensation as the deceased was a gratuitous passenger traveling in a goods vehicle and therefore, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, as well as the permit and therefore, it was exonerated from indemnifying the owner of the vehicle in question. 4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant No.1 was examined as PW1 and he marked Exs.P1 to P7. In so far as the insurer is concerned, an official of the insurer was examined as RW1, who marked Ex.R1 which was the policy of insurance. 5. The Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.4,000/- deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and awarded a sum of Rs.3,84,000/- as loss of dependency and a sum of Rs.36,000/- was awarded under conventional heads . 6. The Tribunal noticed that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and therefore, imposed the liability to pay the compensation upon the owner of the vehicle in question. 7. 6. The Tribunal noticed that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and therefore, imposed the liability to pay the compensation upon the owner of the vehicle in question. 7. The claimant contended in this appeal that the Tribunal ought to have considered the loss of future prospects, having regard to the age of the deceased and also erred in law in treating the younger age of the parents, for the purpose of application of the multiplier. He also reiterated that there was nothing on record to establish that the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and that the deceased was traveling as a representative of the owner of the goods vehicle and by virtue of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer contended that the evidence on record would disclose that the deceased was not an authorised representative of the owner of the goods, but, was infact a gratuitous passenger and therefore, the Tribunal rightly exonerated the insurer. 9. In so far as the question regarding quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal rightly arrived at a notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.4,000/- having regard to the fact that the accident occurred on 16.04.2007. However, the Tribunal ought not to have considered the younger age of the parents of the deceased for the purpose of selection of multiplier, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Chikkamma and Another Vs. Pravathamma and Another, (2017) AIR SC 1732 . The Tribunal ought to have considered the age of the deceased for the purpose of adopting the appropriate multiplier. In addition, the claimants were also entitled to loss of future prospects to the extent of 40% of his income that the deceased would have earned if he was alive as per the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . Since, the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the notional income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. If the above is taken into account, total loss of dependency including the loss of future prospects would be Rs.6,04,800/-. Pranay Sethi, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . Since, the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the notional income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. If the above is taken into account, total loss of dependency including the loss of future prospects would be Rs.6,04,800/-. In addition to the above, the claimants are also entitled to just compensation under the conventional heads namely loss of love and affection , loss of expectancy of life , funeral and other obsequies at the rate of Rs.25,000/- each. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,75,800/- rounded off to Rs.6,80,000/-. 10. In so far as the question of liability is concerned, the Tribunal considered the averments made in the claim petition that the deceased was employed with the owner of the offending vehicle the respondent No.1. It is relevant to note that in the evidence before the Tribunal, PW1 deposed that the deceased was engaged by the driver of the lorry to load the ginger. When the deceased and another Mr.Lokesh loaded the vehicle and when it was passing on Bannur lake bund, the driver lost control and the lorry capsized into the tank. It is relevant to note that the policy issued by the respondent No.2 was a package policy and even if the deceased was found to be employed with the respondent No.1, the liability of the insurer was not exonerated, in view of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was in error in fastening the liability on the owner to pay the compensation. Hence, the following; ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation is allowed and the compensation of a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to a sum of Rs.6,80,888/-. (ii) The insurer-respondent No.2 herein is directed to pay the compensation of a sum of Rs.6,80,000/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the realization. (iii) The insurer is directed to deposit the compensation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) Upon such deposit, 50% of the compensation shall be deposited in the names of the claimant Nos.2 and 3 for a period of two years. (iii) The insurer is directed to deposit the compensation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) Upon such deposit, 50% of the compensation shall be deposited in the names of the claimant Nos.2 and 3 for a period of two years. The remaining 50% shall be released in favour of the claimant Nos.1 and 4.