Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of S. Sujatha and Sachin Shankar Magadum JJ., allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.

The facts of the case are such that the deceased, Chandrashekhar along with Kumar and other inmates were proceeding in a Maruthi Van from Kanipakam to Thimmasanapalli during which the deceased who was driving the vehicle lost control over the vehicle and met with an accident due to which Chandrashekhar and the inmate both died on the spot. The claimants filed a claim petition contending that the deceased was 27 years old and drawing salary as a Supervisor of around Rs 2,00,000 per annum. The Tribunal restricted the income of the deceased at Rs 40,000 and dismissed the claim petition as Chandrashekhar was a tort-feasor and hence the claimants are not entitled to compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred the instant appeal.

Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in observing that the deceased was a tort feasor and the accident is due to his negligence and rash driving. It was further submitted that there is no limit that the income should not exceed more than Rs 40,000 per year and the schedule is only a guidance to arrive at a multiplier as per Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act. It was also submitted that the Tribunal has inherent power to grant compensation by applying current provision of law and also that under Section 163-A the claimants need not prove the rash and negligent act of the driver.

The Court relied on judgment Ningamma v. United India Insurance Company, (2009) 13 SCC 710 and observed that absence of any specific claim under Section 166 MV Act in pleadings would not be an impediment for the Tribunal to examine the claimant’s rights under Section 166 MV Act. The claimants could not be deprived of getting just compensation in the cases where the claimants can make out a case under Section 166 MV Act.

The Court thus held that the claimants in the instant case have filed a claim petition contending that the deceased gad an annual income of Rs 2,10,000 per annum. Since the income of the deceased per annum exceeds the prescribed slab under Section 163 A of MV Act hence the matter was directed to be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

In view of the above, appeal was allowed.[Narayamaswamy v. Venkatesh. B, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 202, decided on 01-02-2021]

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

One comment

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.