THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, BALLARI v. Location: HIGH

Judgment

1. Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SRI H. KRISHNA REDDY S/O. H. KESHAVA REDDY, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLUKAMBA VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUKA AND DISTRICT-583112.

2. SMT. H. PADMAVATHAMMA W/O. H. KRISHNA REDDY, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: KALLUKAMBA VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUKA AND DISTRICT-583112.

3. BETTA GOUDA S/O. JAYARAMAIAH, AGE: 44 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5282-DB MFA No. 101712 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100440 of 2023 OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING REG.NO.CAK-255, R/O: B. RAMAIAHNAVARAMANE, 2ND CROSS, LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560030.

4. K.V. SREENIVASA REDDY S/O. VENKATARAMAPPA, OWNER OF CAK-255, R/O: NO.26, 2ND MAIN DHOBI GOT, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560025. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MANJUNATH JADAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1370/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, BALLARI, BY EXONERATING THE APPELLANT INSURANCE COMPANY FROM THE LIABILITY BY ACCEPTING THE GROUNDS MADE OUT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AN ALSO REDUCING THE COMPENSATION, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN M.F.A. NO.100440 OF 2023 BETWEEN

1. H. KRISHNA REDDY S/O. H. KESHAVA REDDY, AGE. 72 YEARS,

2. SMT. H. PADMAVATHAMMA W/O. H. KRISHNA REDDY, AGE. 67 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O. KALLUKAMBA VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583 113. (BY SRI MANJUNATH JADAI, ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5282-DB MFA No. 101712 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100440 of 2023 AND

1. BETTE GOUDA S/O. JAYARAMAIAH, AGE. 45 YEARS, DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO.CAK-0255, R/O. B. RAMAIAHNAVARAMANE, 2ND CROSS, LAGGARE, BENGALURU-560058.

2. K.V. SREENIVASA REDDY S/O. VENKATARAMAPPA, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.CAK-0255, R/O. NO.26, 2ND MAIN, DHOBI GOT, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560022.

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BALLARI-583101. (BY SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2-SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) …RESPONDENTS THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1370/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, BALLARI AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL TO MEET THE JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 05.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, C.M. POONACHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5282-DB MFA No. 101712 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100440 of 2023 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) Both the above appeals are field under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881, challenging the judgment and award dated 28.01.2020, passed in MVC No.1370/2009, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Ballari2. Hence, they are taken up together for consideration with the consent of both the learned counsel, the appeals were heard finally on merits.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.

3. The factual matrix in a nutshell leading to the present appeals are that on 01.08.2009 one H.Hanumantha Reddy3 was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.03/HE.1168 on the left side of road, when the lorry bearing registration No.CAK.255 came from behind and hit the motorcycle, which the deceased was riding, causing the accident in question, whereunder the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the same in hospital, 1 Hereinafter referred as to ‘M.V. ACT’ 2 Hereinafter referred as to the ‘Tribunal’ 3 Hereinafter referred as to the ‘deceased’ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5282-DB MFA No. 101712 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100440 of 2023 while taking treatment. Claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, his parents i.e., appellants No.1 and 2, instituted claim proceedings, arraying the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.CAK.255, as respondents No.1 to

3. The driver and owner i.e., respondents No.1 and 2 were placed exparte before the Tribunal. The claim proceedings was contested by respondent No.3/insurer, who filed statement of objections contending, inter alia, that the insured lorry did not have a permit and hence there was a violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance.

4. The claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1, an eye witness as PW.2 and the representative of employer of the deceased as PW.3. Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 were marked. The representative of insurer was examined as RW.1 and the First Division Assistant4 the Regional Transport Office, Bengaluru5, was examined as RW.2. Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 were marked.

5. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated

28.01.2020, partly allowed the claim petition, and awarded a 4 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘FDA’ 5 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘RTO, Bengaluru’ - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5282-DB MFA No. 101712 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100440 of 2023 total compensation of ₹15,16,000/- along with interest at 7% p.a. It further directed respondent No.3/insurer to deposit the entire compensation amount together with interest within three months, failing which, the compensation was to be deposited together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Being aggrieved, insurer preferred MFA No.101712/2020 claimants have preferred MFA No.100440/2023.

6. Learned counsel Sri. G.N. Raichur appearing for the insurer contends that the permit was valid from 06.08.2009 to

05.08.2014 and as on the date of accident i.e., 01.8.2009, the insured vehicle did not have any permit. Hence, it is contended that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation awarded and that the owner of vehicle is liable to pay compensation. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of deceased as ₹12,000/- per month, in the absence of adequate material on record. It is also contended that compensation awarded on other heads is exorbitant and the judgment of the Tribunal on interest is also erroneous and is liable to be interfered with. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5282-DB MFA No. 101712 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100440 of 2023

7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Manjunath Jadai appearing for the claimants justifies the finding of the Tribunal on liability and submits that the Tribunal has considered the defence of insurer regarding the permit violation and the same is just and proper. It is further contended that the income of deceased assessed by the Tribunal is ₹12,000/- per month, which is on lower side, having regard to the fact that the claimants have examined the representative of employer as PW.3 and have produced the salary certificate of deceased (Ex.P6), as also Form No.16 issued by the employer of deceased as Ex.P10. It is further contended that compensation awarded on other heads is liable to be enhanced.

8. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and material on record including the records of Tribunal have been perused.

9. The finding of the Tribunal on negligence has attained finality. The questions that arise for consideration are: i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the insurer to pay the compensation awarded? ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper? - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5282-DB MFA No. 101712 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100440 of 2023 REGARDING QUESTION NO.(i):

10. The insurer has taken a specific defence that the insured lorry bearing registration No.CAK.255 did not have a valid permit as on date of accident. The FDA from the RTO Bengaluru, has been examined as RW.2. Copy of permit (Ex.R2), discloses that the permit for insured vehicle was valid from 06.08.2009 to 05.08.2014. The accident occurred on

01.08.2009. It is clear that as on the date of accident, the insured vehicle did not have any valid permit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh And Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited And Others6, has held as follows: “24.........That apart, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the “Tripitka”, that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had directed that the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the 6 (2018) 7 SCC 558 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5282-DB MFA No. 101712 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100440 of 2023 owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh7 and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.” (emphasis supplied)

11. Having regard to the settled proposition of law as held in the case of Amrit Paul Singh6, as noticed above, the insurer is liable to pay compensation with accrued interest to the claimants with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered partly in the affirmative. REGARDING QUESTION No.(ii):

12. The claimants have averred that the deceased was employed as an engineer in ABB Global Industries and Services Limited (Operation Center India) and was earning of ₹47,050/- per month. The representative of the employer has been examined as PW.3. The certificate dated 20.06.2009 (Ex.P6) issued by employer discloses that deceased was employed from

02.05.2008. A copy of the salary certificate of deceased for the month of July-2009 discloses that the total earnings is ₹40,824/- and the total deductions are ₹11,366/-. In the 7 National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5282-DB MFA No. 101712 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100440 of 2023 earnings, a sum of ₹9403/- is shown as medical reimbursement and from the deductions, the said amount of ₹9403/-, is shown as medical insurance premium recover. Hence, the said amount is not required to be taken for the purpose of assessing the income of deceased. Further, a sum of ₹383/- towards income tax and ₹200/- towards professional tax is also required to be deducted. Hence, it is just and proper to assess the monthly income of deceased as ₹30,838/-. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹12,000/- per month and ₹1,44,000/- per annum. It is relevant to note that the Tribunal has not considered the testimony of employer of deceased (PW.3), as also the salary certificate of deceased (Ex.P6). Hence, the assessment of monthly income of deceased by the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be interfered with.

13. The deceased was aged 25 years as on the date of accident. The accident occurred on 01.08.2009. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Others8, 50% of the income is to be added towards loss of future prospects in life. The deceased was a bachelor. Therefore 8 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5282-DB MFA No. 101712 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100440 of 2023 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate applicable multiplier is 18. Therefore, loss of dependency is re-assessed as ₹49,95,864/- (₹30,838/- + 50% minus 50% x 12 x 18).

14. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Nanu Ram & Others9, and in the case of Pranay Sethi8, the claimants are entitled to ₹40,000/- each under the head ‘loss of consortium’, along with 10% escalation. Accordingly, ₹88,000/- (₹44,000 x 2) is awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium including loss of love and affection’.

15. Further, a compensation of ₹15,000/- each is awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral and transportation’ respectively, along with 10% escalation. Hence, a sum of ₹16,500/- each is awarded under the heads of ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral and transportation’ respectively.

16. Thus, the claimants would be entitled compensation under various heads as under: 9 2018 ACJ 2782 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5282-DB MFA No. 101712 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100440 of 2023 Amount awarded by the Tribunal (₹) Amount awarded this Court (₹) 12,96,000.00 49,95,864.00 ------ 88,000.00 1,00,000.00 ------ 1,00,000.00 20,000.00 16,500.00 16,500.00 15,16,000.00 51,16,864.00 Sl. No. 1.

4. 5. Heads Towards dependency. Towards consortium including love and affection (44,000 x 2 +10%). For the loss of love and affection and moral and financial support. Loss of estate Towards transportation performing ceremony. Total funeral obsequies

17. Hence, the claimants are entitled compensation of ₹51,16,864/- as against ₹15,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at 7% pa. Accordingly, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced and question No.(ii) is answered in the ‘negative’.

18. The Tribunal has directed to pay interest at 7% per annum within three months, failing which, it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5282-DB MFA No. 101712 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100440 of 2023 petition, which is in excessive. Taking judicial notice of rate of fixed deposit, the interest is liable to be awarded at 7% per annum.

19. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i) Both the appeals are allowed in part; ii) The judgment and award dated 28.01.2020, passed in MVC No.1370/2009, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Ballari, is modified as ordered herein. In all other respects the award of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered; iii) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of ₹51,16,864/- along with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization as against ₹15,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal; iv) The insurer, who is arrayed as respondent No.3, before the Tribunal, is liable to pay compensation awarded with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, who is - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5282-DB MFA No. 101712 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100440 of 2023 arrayed as respondent No.2, before Tribunal; v) The amount deposited appellant/Insurance Company MFA No.101712/2020 together with the records be transmitted to the Tribunal; vi) The insurer shall deposit the balance compensation together with accrued interest within a period of four weeks; vii) Consequent to the deposit, the quantum of compensation be disbursed to the claimants in terms of the award of the Tribunal; vi) The Registry to draw the modified decree accordingly; No costs. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3