Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Girija

K.L. Manjunath, J.—The appellant-insurance company is in appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award passed by the MACT, Bangalore, dated 04.07.2012 in MVC No. 1486/2010.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder:

The claimants are the legal heirs of one A. Manjunath who was working as a technician in Indian Institute of Horticultural Research Center, Bangalore. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 20,464/- per month. He was aged about 40 years. On 13.02.2009, he was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-02-L-8696, along with his mother as a pillion rider. At about 7.00 p.m., when he was near eucalyptus garden of one Lakshmaiah at Kalenahalli in between Matpur and Shivakote Cross Road, all of a sudden the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-04-EQ-2480, which was coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life dashed against the motor cycle of Manjunath. On account of the impact the deceased sustained injuries all over the body. He was shifted to N.R.R. Hospital, Hesaragatta Main Road, Chikkasandra. From there he was shifted to NIMHANS, Bangalore and on account of the head injuries sustained, he succumbed to the injuries on 14.12.2009.

The police on the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased registered a case against the owner of the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-04-EQ-2480, and charge-sheet was filed. The first respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle. Though the owner was served with the notice, he did not contest the matter. The insurance company contested the matter on the ground that though the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident, the same has been falsely implicated at the instance of the claimants and that the owner has lent his name. Based on the pleadings, the parties went into the trial.

On behalf of the claimants, the widow of Manjunath was examined as PW-1, the mother of the deceased Alumelamma, who was also pillion rider and also sustained grievous injuries was examined as PW-2 and had filed a separate claim petition in MVC No. 1487/2010 and one Dwarkanath was examined as PW-3 to prove the income of the deceased and the father of the deceased Shri. Ashwathappa, was examined as PW-4.

The trial court based on the findings let-in by the parties and the documents produced by the claimants came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-04-EQ-2480. Considering the income of the deceased, since he was a Central Government employee, compensation towards loss of future prospectus was awarded adding 30% of the income and by applying the multiplier of ''15''. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 38,12,220/- was awarded towards loss of dependency'' and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the head loss of estate'', Rs. 5,000/- towards ''funeral expenses'', Rs. 10,000/- towards ''loss of consortium''. In all, Rs. 38,12,220/- was awarded. Challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award the insurance company has filed the pre sent appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed two grounds. According to him, the liability saddled on the insurance company is liable to be set-aside. Since the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and that it is falsely cited on account of the collusion between the claimants and the owner of the motor cycle one Shri. Chandrashekar. According to him, if any liability to be saddled it is only on the owner and not on the insurance company. Secondly, he contends that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also on higher side.

Having heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents, the points that arise for consideration are:

i. Whether the trial court is justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company? and;

ii. Whether the quantum of'' compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be interfered?

So far as the first point is concerned, admittedly, a complaint is lodged by the father of the deceased who was also following the deceased in another vehicle. According to the first respondent, the rider of the offending motor cycle after causing the accident ran away from the place. Later, with the help of the persons who were present therein, the deceased was shifted to the hospital. We have also seen the police records and the deposition of Chandrashekar, the owner of the motor cycle deposed before the Court Commissioner.

According to Shri. Chandrashekar, the owner of the vehicle, his vehicle was missing and he went to the police stations to lodged a complaint regarding the missing vehicle. Then he noticed that his motor cycle was parked in the station in a damaged condition. Then the vehicle was identified by the owner of the vehicle in the police station and damage caused to the said vehicle was also noticed by him. When the Motor Vehicle Inspector''s report tallies with the damaged caused to the vehicle and the damaged noticed by the owner, it goes without saying that the accident occurred on account of the use of the motor cycle of Chandrashekar. Accordingly, the court has decided the matter. Hence, it cannot be said that the vehicle in question is not involved in the accident.

Shri. A.N. Krishna Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that challenging the registration of the criminal case against the owner of the vehicle, the insurance company has filed a petition before this Court in Criminal Petition No. 2636/2011, which petition has been disposed off with certain directions, under the impression that the claim petition was still pending before the court. But unfortunately, the case was already disposed off on merits by the Tribunal. Therefore, any observations made in the aforesaid criminal petition could not be taken note by the Tribunal as on the date of disposal of the claim petition. There is nothing on record to show that there is collusion between the owner of the vehicle and the claimants and we cannot easily brush aside the findings of the Tribunal in regard to negligence, merely because the owner of the vehicle has not contested the matter. Accordingly, we hold point no. 1 against the appellant.

So far as point no. 2 is concerned, we do not see any reasons to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. Since the same is based on the income assessed by the Income tax department, and the age of the deceased and the future prospects is calculated taking into account that he was a Central Government employee. Under these circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit if any, is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal for further orders.