High Court of Karnataka Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Claim — Apportionment of Liability Between Two Insurers Based on Contributory Negligence. The court held that the insurer of the auto rickshaw cannot be exonerated when its driver was equally negligent, and applied multiplier of 13 for deceased aged 45 years under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 23
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the claimants, the legal representatives of the deceased Narasimhegowda @ Chandru, seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging the Tribunal's finding that exonerated the insurer of the auto rickshaw (respondent No.4) from liability. The accident occurred on 16.04.2008 at around 3.00 p.m. when the deceased was returning to his village from Channarayapatna. He was traveling in an auto rickshaw when a car collided with the auto rickshaw, causing fatal injuries. The claimants filed a claim petition before the Fast Track Court, Channarayapatna in MVC No.77/2011, which awarded compensation of Rs.3,55,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. The Tribunal held that both drivers were equally negligent and apportioned liability 50:50 between the two vehicles, but exonerated the insurer of the auto rickshaw (respondent No.4) from liability. The claimants appealed, arguing that the compensation was inadequate and that the insurer of the auto rickshaw should be held liable. The High Court considered the evidence and found that the Tribunal had erred in applying a multiplier of 12 instead of 13 based on the age of the deceased (45 years) as per the principles in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation. The court recalculated the loss of dependency using a multiplier of 13 and increased the conventional heads for loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. The total compensation was enhanced from Rs.3,55,000/- to Rs.5,55,000/-. Regarding liability, the High Court held that since both drivers were negligent, the insurer of the auto rickshaw cannot be exonerated and is jointly and severally liable to pay 50% of the compensation. The court directed that the insurer of the car (respondent No.2) and the insurer of the auto rickshaw (respondent No.4) shall each pay 50% of the enhanced compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. The appeal was allowed in part.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation Enhancement - Section 173(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claimants sought enhancement of compensation for death of Narasimhegowda @ Chandru in a road accident involving a car and an auto rickshaw - The High Court enhanced compensation from Rs.3,55,000/- to Rs.5,55,000/- by applying multiplier of 13 instead of 12 and increasing conventional heads - Held that the multiplier should be based on the age of the deceased (45 years) as per Sarla Verma case (Paras 4-5).

B) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Apportionment of Liability - Sections 166, 168 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The accident occurred due to rash driving of both car and auto rickshaw - Tribunal held both drivers equally negligent - High Court upheld 50:50 apportionment of liability between the two vehicles - Held that the insurer of each vehicle is liable to pay 50% of the enhanced compensation (Paras 3, 6).

C) Motor Accident Claims - Liability of Insurer - Section 147 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal exonerated the insurer of the auto rickshaw (respondent No.4) from liability - High Court reversed this finding and held that since both drivers were negligent, the insurer of the auto rickshaw is jointly and severally liable to pay 50% of the compensation - Held that the insurer cannot be exonerated when the insured vehicle is involved in the accident due to its driver's negligence (Paras 3, 6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation and whether the Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurer of the auto rickshaw (respondent No.4) from liability.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed in part. The compensation is enhanced from Rs.3,55,000/- to Rs.5,55,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. The liability is apportioned equally between the insurer of the car (respondent No.2) and the insurer of the auto rickshaw (respondent No.4), each liable to pay 50% of the enhanced compensation. The insurer of the auto rickshaw is held jointly and severally liable.

Law Points

  • Motor Vehicles Act
  • 1988
  • Section 173(1)
  • Compensation Enhancement
  • Contributory Negligence
  • Liability of Insurer
  • Apportionment of Liability
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (KAR) (01) 19

MFA No.7546/2011 (MV)

2014-01-20

Huluvadi G Ramesh

Smt. A R Sharadamba (for appellants), Sriyuths: D S Sridhar (for R4), K S Ravi (for R3), O Mahesh (for R2)

Smt. Sundaramma, B N Madhu, Kum. Divya, B N Manu

M P Manjegowda, Senior Manager (Claim) Cholamandalam Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Smt. Jayalakshmi, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging exoneration of insurer from liability in a motor accident claim.

Remedy Sought

Claimants sought enhancement of compensation from Rs.3,55,000/- to a higher amount and reversal of Tribunal's finding exonerating insurer of auto rickshaw (respondent No.4) from liability.

Filing Reason

Claimants were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the exoneration of the insurer of the auto rickshaw.

Previous Decisions

The Fast Track Court, Channarayapatna in MVC No.77/2011 dated 01.03.2011 awarded compensation of Rs.3,55,000/- with interest at 6% per annum, holding both drivers equally negligent but exonerating the insurer of the auto rickshaw.

Issues

Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation? Whether the Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurer of the auto rickshaw (respondent No.4) from liability?

Submissions/Arguments

Claimants argued that the compensation awarded was inadequate and that the insurer of the auto rickshaw should be held liable as the accident was due to negligence of both drivers. Respondents (insurers) argued that the Tribunal correctly apportioned liability and exonerated the insurer of the auto rickshaw.

Ratio Decidendi

In motor accident claims, the multiplier should be based on the age of the deceased as per Sarla Verma principles. When both drivers are negligent, liability is apportioned equally between the insurers of the respective vehicles, and the insurer of a vehicle involved in the accident cannot be exonerated if its driver is found negligent.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal is by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation against the award passed by the Fast Track Court, Channarayapatna in MVC No.77/2011 dated 01.03.2011 and also challenging the finding of Tribunal with respect to dismissal of case against the Insurance Company of auto rickshaw – respondent No.4 as not liable. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier as 12, but as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case, the multiplier applicable to the age group of 41-45 years is 13. Hence, the multiplier is taken as 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation is enhanced from Rs.3,55,000/- to Rs.5,55,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. The liability is apportioned equally between the insurer of the car and the insurer of the auto rickshaw.

Procedural History

The claimants filed MVC No.77/2011 before the Fast Track Court, Channarayapatna, which awarded compensation on 01.03.2011. Aggrieved, the claimants filed MFA No.7546/2011 before the High Court of Karnataka under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement and challenging the exoneration of the insurer of the auto rickshaw.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 173(1), 166, 168, 147
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Claim — Apportionment of Liability Between Two Insurers Based on Contributory Negligence. The court held that the insurer of the auto rickshaw cannot be exonerated when its driver was ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Withdrawal of Suit Without Liberty. Plaintiff's Right to Withdraw Suit Under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC is Absolute When No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought.