Hanurnantappa Sb Siddalingappa Gounder & Ors. v. Nagappa B.PiHekatti

2. Smt. Javamma. W/o Lakshman Gouder c Malagund, .. .Appellant :3: Now aged about 39 years, 0cc: Coolie, Both R/o Malagund, .Tq: 1-langal.

3. Nagappa B.Pillikatti Age: Major. 0cc: Business, R/o Shadaguppi. Tq: Hanagal. . . . Respondents (By Sri. Umesh C.Ainapur. Adv. For R I & R2 & Sri l.C.Patil, Adv. For R3.) This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under section 173(1) OF MV Act, against the judgment and award dated 29.06.2007 passed in MVC.No. 118/2004 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.J & AMACT. Hangal, awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,45,000/- with interest 6”. p.a. In MFA.NO.295 1/2008) BETWEEN: Divisional Manager. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, # 2 Enkay Complex, Keshwapur. Huhli-580023. (By Si-i Laxman B.Mannoddar. Advocate) . . .Appellant AND:

1. Shambanna, S/o Basalingappa Kodihalli, Now aged about 56 years. a- :3: 0cc: agriculture, R/o: Shadaguppi. Tq. Hangal.

2. Nagappa B. Pillikani Major; 0cc: Business, Rio Shadaguppi, Tq: Hanagal. (B Sri. I.C.Patil, Mv. For R2.) . .. Respondents This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 173(1) OF MV Act, against the judgment and award dated 29.06.2007 passed in MVC.No.25/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & AMACT, Hangal, awarding a compensation of Rs.6.000/- with interest ‘ii 6% p.a. In MFA.NO.2953/2008) BETWEEN: Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.. Divisional Office, * 2 Enkay Complex. Keshwapur, Hubli-580023. . . .Appellant (By Sri La.xman B.Mannoddar, Advocate) AND:

1. Smt. Neelavva, W/o Rurdrappa 1-lalappanavar ;ü Hanappanavar. Now aged about 32 years, 0cc: agriculture. Rio Haven. Now at Akki-Alur, Tq: Hangal. e

2.Nagappa F3PiIlkatti Ma or, Ccc. Busincs, P/u Shadaguppi. Tq Hanagal. (By Sri S. Ltlx ad. Adv. Fur R I Sri, C. Pall .Adv. Fur P21 .. .Respondents ( 1) 01 this miscellaneous first appeal filed under se( t]O1i \1\ Act against th JuClgm( nt and award dated 21.0(22007 passed in MVC.No.90/2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dii.) & AMACT, Hangal, at ai ding i curnp nsatiun uf R o 0(10/ 6 pa. ith m1 I JLt(L ±LQJ BETWEEN: Divisional Manager. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, # 2 Enkav Complex. keshwapur, H ubii-n80023. (By Sri Laxman B. Mannoddar, Advocate) A N D: • Basavanc ipa S / o Malta ppa kainel Ia Now agad about a7 years. Ccc: Goundi Masion(. R/o Yattinahalli, Tq: l-Ianl, Now R/ Rajerid ran aca r, H averi. ... Appellant 0

2. Nagappi S/o Basappa Pillikatti Age: Major, 0cc: Business, R/o Shadaguppi. Tq: 1-lanagal. (By Sri. S.M. Kalwad, Adv. For Ri & Sri. l.C.Patil. Adv. For R2.) . . . Respondents This miscellaneous first appeal filed under section 173(1) OF MV Act, against the judgment and award dated 31.10.2007 passed in MVC No.296/2006 on the file of the District Judge & MACT, Haven and C.C. Presiding Officer. Fast Track Court. Haveri, awarding a compensation of Rs.80,000/- with interest Q? 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the realisation of the amount. The cross objection and appeals coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT As these appeals and MFA cross objections are arising out of a common judgment but different awards of the Tribunal, they are heard together and disposed of finally by this common judgment with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

3. As there is no dispute regarding death of the deceased Shiddalingappa and injuries sustained by the claimants in M.P.A. Nos. 2951, 2953 and 2960 of 2008 in the road traffic accident that occurred on 14.02.2004 due to rash and negligent driving of tempo bearing registration No.1(4.27/2963 by its driver the only point that remains for my consideration is, the insurer of Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability against offending Jeep and whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal just and reasonable or does it call reduction or enhancement?

4. Learned counsel for the insurer of the offending jeep submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive S. the otTendinh leep. which is a passenger carrying cocrca! vhiclc anti classifhd a Tiansuort enicIo and Tribunal has t’oinmitted an error in fastening ihe iiabiliv on the insurer. In support 01 his submission, he relied on the iudgmenis of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Complainant. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai & Ors. reportod in 11(2006) ACC 19(SC) and in the case of Oriental Insurance Complainant. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol and others reported in 2009 ACJ 1411. 5 Hesuhniits uantum of compensation awarded in the death case is not just and reasonable, it is on the higher side and prays for reduction but fairl\ submits quantum of compcn sation awarded by the Tribunal in the injuries cases

6. Learned counsel appearing lbr the claimant submits thai driver of the offending vehicle. b virtue of posseSsing dnving licence to drive light motor vehicle. was having a valid and efTectivc driving licence to drive the offtndinr vehicle the unladen weight of which is less :9: than 7.500 kgs. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments: (1) National Insurance Cbinpany Limited Vs. Annappa kappa !Vesaria and Others - 2008(2) Kar.L.J. 651 (SC) (2) New India Assurance Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. Chikkappaiah alias Chikkappa and Others - 2009 (1) Kar.LJ.634 (3) National Insurance complainant. Ltd., Rep. by its Administrative Officer Vs. Yalgurdappa, Since deceased by his L.Rs. and another — ILR 2010 KAR 4733 He submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the case of death of deceased Shiddalingappa is on the lower side and he prays for allowing cross-objections enhancing compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

7. The driver of the offending vehicle having obtained driving licence on 23.10.1996 to drive light motor non transport vehicle valid upto 24.04.20 16 is entitled to drive Transport vehicle the unladen weight of which is less than 7,500 kgs. a- :10:

8. Although Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act was introduced in the yefl 1994 specifying different license for different category of transport and non- transport vehicles but Rule 14 of the Motor Vehicle Rules has been amended with effect from 28.03.2001. until then those cho have obtained driving licenses tO drive light motor vehicles (NonTransPOrt) have been permitted to drive transport motor vehicles provided unladen weight of uhich is less than 7,500 Kgs. as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Complainant. Ltd., Rep. by its Administrative Officer Vs. YalgurdaPPa and another and by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others. Therefore, judgments of the Tribunal fastening the liability Ofl the insurer is in accordance with the aforesaid judgments. a- 9 \‘m. I to sre hetlier cluantimi corn pensut ion aw : irdri I h t hr Tribunal ‘ii. \o 2)4’ JU0S i\l.FA (rnb No 77t* 2011) is just .ind reasonable or does it tall for reduction or enhancement it is a case ot death of Shiddalingappa aged nO sears as evident froni Post nioririn Report Ex.P.4. CI.’irnants in support of their contention that their deceased father was workini as a mason and earning Rs.5.000/ except examining I ‘ claimant son of the deceased as P.W. I. produced documentary evidence establishing his profession and income.

10. Considering the age of the deceased as bO years and the 5ear of the accident as 2004. his income could he easily assessed at Rs.4.000/ as against Rs.3.000’ assessed 1w thc Tribunal. Claimants are major son and married daughter and they are not dependent legal representatives of the deceased and therefore. Tribunal has committed an error in deducting b 3 — D C 0 — 0 C — D C D C i i c - 0 - D C — — - — — D C D C . - D C ) C 0 0 D C — E 3 — ) 0 0 C ) - D C 0 — — D C C — D C D C — C 0 0 C D C - _ D C D C r D C 0 C D C r — 0 C D C — D C D C D C D C ) C 0 — C 0 0 D C 0 C D C D C C C 0 C C C 0C - — - 0 — 0 D C 0 • — Q — 0 _ _ — — C C C - C a D C D C D C D C D C D C • — — - r C ) C — C - • C 0 ) q j ç 0 C 0 C C C C o D C D C 0 D C 0 — 0 a D C — D C C C C H D C o o 13: 1) Loss of estate 2) Loss of love and affection 3) Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 1,08,000/ - Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 1,28,000/- Thus, the claimants/cross objectors in M.F.A. Crob No.779/2010 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,28,000/- as against 2,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

13. For reasons stated above, M.F.A. Nos.2951, 2953 and 2960 of 2008 are dismissed. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

14. M.F.A. No.2949/2008 and M.F.A. Crob. No.779/2011 are disposed of. Judgment and award of the Tribunal passed in M.V.C. No.118/2004 on

29.06.2007 is hereby modified. Compensation of a- 14: Ra2.45.000/ is reduced to Rs.I.28,000/. Out of the compensation of Rs.1,28,000/ Rs50,000/ each with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested In Fixed Deposit in the names of claimant Nos.1 and 2 in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank or Post Office for a period of nine years with right of option for them to renew the deposit from time to time and withdraw periodical interest accrued thereon. Remaining amount of Rs.28,000/- with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in favour of dalinant Nos. I and 2 equally. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the Order of the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Se!? JUDGE