Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 217 (KAR)

Shantaveeramma v. Mohan

2022-02-15

S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

body2022
JUDGMENT S. Vishwajith Shetty, J. - The instant appeals have been filed by the claimant as well as by the Insurer of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award dated 06.06.2012 passed by the MACT-II, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for brevity), in MVC No. 386/2009. 2. Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides, the same are taken up for final disposal. 3. The parties to these appeals are referred to by their rankings assigned to them before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 4. The facts of the case as revealed from the records are: On 06.10.2008 at about 8.00 pm, when the deceased K. Basavaraj was standing on the side of the road near Balakundi village, the offending truck bearing registration No. KA-29/4953 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver while reversing the said vehicle, dashed against the deceased Basavaraj and as a result, the deceased Basavaraj, who suffered grievous injuries in the said accident, succumbed and died on the spot. The claimant being the widow of deceased Basavaraj had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming compensation from the Insurer and owner of the offending truck bearing registration No. KA-29/4953. The Tribunal vide the impugned judgment and award had allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,24,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has preferred MFA No. 21491/2013 and MFA No. 24291/2012 has been preferred by the Insurer of the offending truck questioning the liability to pay compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submits that the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased on the lower side and even under the conventional heads, the claimant is entitled for a higher compensation. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation amount. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurer submits that the driver of the offending truck did not possess a valid and effective licence to drive the truck as on the date of the accident. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation amount. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurer submits that the driver of the offending truck did not possess a valid and effective licence to drive the truck as on the date of the accident. She submits that, as on the date of accident, the driver of the offending truck possessed a light motor vehicle driving licence and the heavy goods vehicle licence, which was granted to him earlier had expired on 24.01.2008, i.e., much prior to the accident in question, which has taken place on 06.10.2008. She has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Padma and Others Vs. Ramanjali and Others passed in MFA No. 100226/2016, disposed of on 22.04.2021 and submits that, since the driver of the offending truck did not have a valid driving licence, the Tribunal was not justified in saddling the liability to pay compensation on the Insurer of the offending truck. 7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Mahantesh Mathad, appearing on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle, submits that the driver of the offending vehicle had a driving licence to drive heavy goods vehicle and it is not a case where he never possessed a heavy goods licence and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in saddling the liability on the Insurer of the offending vehicle. 8. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that, having regard to the judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Yallavva and Another reported in 2020 ACJ 2560, even if the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence as on the date of accident, the Insurer of the offending vehicle is required to pay the compensation to the claimant and then recover the same from the owner. 9. I have carefully considered the rival arguments and also perused the material on record. 10. The involvement of the offending truck in the accident in question that had taken place on 06.10.2008 is not in dispute, so also the fact that the said vehicle was duly insured by the appellant Insurance Company and the Insurance Policy was valid as on the date of accident. 10. The involvement of the offending truck in the accident in question that had taken place on 06.10.2008 is not in dispute, so also the fact that the said vehicle was duly insured by the appellant Insurance Company and the Insurance Policy was valid as on the date of accident. It is also not in dispute that, at the time of accident the driver of the offending truck was holding a valid and effective licence to drive a light motor vehicle. However, the fact remains that the driver of the offending truck had a licence to drive heavy goods vehicle earlier and the same expired on 24.01.2008. Therefore, from the records it is very clear that the driver of the offending vehicle had a transport goods vehicle driving licence earlier, but as on the date of accident, the same has been expired. 11. Under the circumstances, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Yallavva and Another reported in 2020 ACJ 2560, the Insurer of the offending lorry cannot be completely exonerated from paying the compensation to the claimant. The Insurer of the offending truck is required to pay the compensation to the claimant and thereafterwards recover the same from the owner of the offending truck. 12. In the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Padma and Others Vs. Ramanjali and Others passed in MFA No. 100226/2016, disposed of on 22.04.2021, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer, the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Yallavva (supra) has not been considered. Since the case of judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Yallavva(supra) would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, following the same, it is held that the Insurer of the offending lorry is required to pay the compensation to the claimant and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending truck, in the event if it is found that the driver of the offending truck did not possess valid and effective licence to drive the truck as on the date of accident. 13. Insofar as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is concerned, admittedly the deceased was aged about 30 years as on the date of accident. 13. Insofar as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is concerned, admittedly the deceased was aged about 30 years as on the date of accident. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Having regard to the income chart maintained by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the purpose of disposal of motor vehicle accident cases before the Lok Adalath, the notional income of the deceased having regard to the year of accident ought to have been taken at Rs. 4,250/- per month. 40% of the said income ought to have been taken towards loss of future prospects and 1/3rd of the same is required to be deducted towards personal expenses. The appropriate multiplier applicable shall be 17 and in the said event, the claimant would be entitled for a compensation of Rs. 8,09,268/- (Rs. 3967 x 12 x 17) towards 'loss of dependency'. Towards 'loss of consortium', the claimant is therefore entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, the claimant is entitled for another sum of Rs. 30,000/-. The claimant is therefore entitled for a total sum of Rs. 8,79,268/- as compensation as against Rs. 4,24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Since the Insurer of the offending truck is held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and then recover the same from the owner of the offending truck, the Insurer of the offending truck is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation with interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount in deposit before this Court in MFA No. 24291/2012 is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal for the purpose of disposal. The order passed by the Tribunal insofar as it relates to deposit and disbursement etc., remains unaltered and the same is also applicable to enhanced amount of compensation. Accordingly, MFA Nos. 24291/2012 and 21491/2013 are partly allowed. In view of disposal of the main appeals, all pending I.As. will not survive for consideration.