THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI T PURUSHOTHAMA

MR. D.VIJAY, S/O K.DHANRAJ, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.75, DODDIPALLI, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH.

M/S. ORIENTAL INS. COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFICE, NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, F.M.KARIYAPPA ROAD CROSS, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.

M/S. NATIONAL INS. COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, LEO SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.

MR.Y.M.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O MUNISWAMAPPA, R/AT SANTHE CIRCLE, MARADI LAKSHMI RANGANATHA NILAYA, AJJEGOWDA BUILDING,

MASTER Y.R.MARDISH, S/O Y.M.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, R/A SANTHE CIRCLE,

MR. VIJAY D., S/O K.DHANRAJ, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.75, DODDIPALLI, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH – 517 001.

M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.

MR.Y.M.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O MUNISWAMAPPA, R/AT SANTHE CIRCLE, MARADI LAKSHMI RANGANATHA

MASTER Y.R.MARDISH, S/O Y.M.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,

MR. VIJAY D., S/O K.DHANRAJ, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.75, DODDIPALLI, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH – 517 001.

M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.

MR.Y.M.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O MUNISWAMAPPA, R/AT SANTHE CIRCLE, MARADI LAKSHMI RANGANATHA NILAYA, AJJEGOWDA BUILDING, YELANKA OLD TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 064.

MR. D.VIJAY, S/O K.DHANRAJ, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.75, DODDIPALLI, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH.

M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFICE, NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, F.M.KARIYAPPA ROAD CROSS, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.

M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, LEO SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.

MR.Y.M.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O MUNISWAMAPPA, R/AT SANTHE CIRCLE, MARADI LAKSHMI RANGANATHA NILAYA, AJJEGOWDA BUILDING,

MASTER Y.R.MARDISH, S/O Y.M.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, R/A SANTHE CIRCLE, MARADI LAKSHMI RANGANATHA NILAYA, AJJEGOWDA BUILDING, YELAHANKA OLD TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 064.

MR. VIJAY D., S/O K.DHANRAJ, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.75, DODDIPALLI, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH – 517 001.

M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.

MR.Y.M.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O MUNISWAMAPPA, R/AT SANTHE CIRCLE, MARADI LAKSHMI RANGANATHA NILAYA, AJJEGOWDA BUILDING, YELANKA OLD TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 064. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.L.PREMKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 10.09.2015; R4 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

MR.Y.M.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O MUNISWAMAPPA, R/AT SANTHE CIRCLE, MARADI LAKSHMI RANGANATHA NILAYA, AJJEGOWDA BUILDING, YELANKA OLD TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 064.

MR. VIJAY D., S/O K.DHANRAJ, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.75, DODDIPALLI, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH – 517 001.

M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 10.09.2015; R1 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

MFA No.3631/2013 and MFA No.3632/2013 have been filed by the claimants, whereas, MFA Nos.9651/2012, 9652/2012, 9653/2012 and 9654/2012 have been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Insurance Company’ for short) against the judgment dated 02.07.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter

Since all the appeals pertain to the same accident and have been dealt with by the common judgment, these appeals were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.

The facts leading to filling of these appeals briefly stated are that on 22.07.2007, at about 10.30 a.m., injured Y.R.Mardish and Y.M. Ramakrishna, deceased Mangala and Niroopa were proceeding in a car bearing registration No.KA-04-MV-6909 on Tumkur-Sira road, namely, National Highway-4. When they reached near Chikkanahalli gate, a lorry bearing registration No.AP-21-V-5815, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and was proceeding in a high speed in front of the said car, suddenly stopped in the middle of the road. As a result of which the car in which the deceased and

The claimants, thereupon, filed petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). Injured, Y.R.Mardish, a young boy, aged about 9 years at the time of the accident, was claimant in MVC No.7965 of 2007 filed under Section 166 of the Act, in which inter alia it was pleaded that the claimant had sustained fracture lower 3rd shaft of right femur and he was inpatient for a period of 5 days i.e, from 22.07.2007 to 27.07.2007. It was, however, pleaded that he underwent open reduction and internal fixation with tens nail on

The legal representatives of deceased Mangala filed MVC No.7963/2007 under Section 166 of the Act, in which inter alia it was pleaded that the deceased Mangala was imparting tuition to the students and was also engaged in milk vending business as well as agricultural operations and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. Accordingly, the compensation on account of her death was claimed.

The legal representatives of deceased Niroopa, who was student of 7th standard, sustained

The claimant, namely, Y.M.Ramakrishna filed the petition under Section 166 of the Act, namely, MVC No.7966/2007 seeking compensation in which inter alia it was pleaded that in the aforesaid accident, he sustained deep lacerated cut wound over the lower lip, lacerated wound about 2 cms., over the upper lip, abrasions present over left leg and 4 to 7 ribs posterior ribs shaft left side. The aforesaid claimant remained inpatient for a period from 22.07.2007 till 31.07.2007. Accordingly, compensation was claimed.

On receipt of the notices of the proceedings, 1st and 4th respondents, namely, owners of the lorry and car remained absent and were proceeded exparte before the Claims Tribunal.

Respondent No.2 in its written statement inter alia it was pleaded that the lorry bearing registration No.AP-21-V-5815 was insured with the Insurance Company. It was further pleaded that the driver of the lorry did not have valid and effective Driving License and the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, in which the deceased persons and injured were traveling. It was also pleaded that admittedly, the car hit the lorry from behind, from which, it is evident that the car was being driven in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. It was pleaded that even there was sufficient place to take over the lorry by the right side but, the driver did not adhere to the rules and regulations. It was pleaded that the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the car.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3, namely, the Insurer of the Car in its written statement inter alia pleaded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and therefore, respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify the insured.

The Claims Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed issues and recorded the evidence. The claimants, in all, examined 3 witnesses, namely, PW-1-M. Sridhar, PW-2-Adishesha and PW-3-Dr. Sunil Kumar and got exhibited documents, namely, Exs.P-1 to P-15. The respondents cross-examined one D. Venkata Rao, the officer of the Insurance Company as RW-1 and copy of the Insurance Policy was exhibited as Ex.R-1. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned judgment inter alia held that the accident took place as the driver of the lorry, who was driving on

The Claims Tribunal held that the driver of the lorry as well as driver of the car had contributed to the accident to an extent of 50% each in causing of the accident. It was further held that the claimant in MVC No.7965/2007, namely, Y.R.Mardish is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- along with interest at 8% p.a. The Claimants in MVC No.7963/2007 were entitled to a sum of Rs.4,09,000/- along with interest at 8% p.a on account of death of the deceased Mangala. Whereas, claimants in MVC No.7964/2007 were held entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest at 8% p.a on account of death of deceased Niroopa. The injured, namely, Y.M.Ramakrishna was claimant in MVC No.7966/2007 was held entitled to a sum of

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company while inviting our attention to the First Information Report, which was lodged by A. Eshwari Prasad, submitted that in the First Information Report it was stated by him that an unknown car dashed against the lorry, which was parked by the side of the road. While inviting our attention to Ex.P-3- the sketch, it was pointed out that the place where accident took place was National Highway and there were 3 lanes on either sides and there was enough place to overtake the lorry.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also referred to the evidence of PW-2, namely, Adishesha, who is claimed to be an eye witness, has referred to his cross-examination and

Learned counsel for the National Insurance Company on the other hand submitted that even assuming the version of the learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company to be correct, on Highway no vehicle could have been parked. It was also pointed out that charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the lorry as well as driver of the car. Learned counsel for the National Insurance Company has also invited our attention to Regulation Nos.23 and 24 of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short) and has submitted that no driver of the vehicle shall apply brake abruptly unless it is necessary to do so for safety reasons. The burden to prove the same was on the driver of the lorry. However, the aforesaid burden has not been discharged by proceeding against the driver of the lorry as witness. It is further submitted that the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal with

Learned counsel for the claimants in MFA Nos.9631/2013 and 3632/2013 submitted that the compensation, which has been awarded to the claimants, is on the lower side and the same deserves to be enhanced suitably. Learned counsel for the claimants has supported the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal.

We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the records. The following issues arise for our consideration in these appeals, namely, the contributory negligence and the quantum of compensation.

Firstly, we may deal with the issue with regard to the contributory negligence. It is pertinent to mention here that against the driver of both the vehicles, namely, the car and the lorry, the

Regulation 23 of the Rules provides that the driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another motor vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop. Similarly, Section 24 of the Rules provides that no driver of the vehicle shall apply brake abruptly unless it is necessary to do so for safety reasons. In the instant case, it appears that driver of the car had not maintained sufficient distance from the lorry and the driver of the lorry had applied sudden brake, due to which the accident took place. It is also pertinent to note that Insurance Company could have produced the driver of the lorry as witness. However, the same has not been produced

Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, the Claims Tribunal on the basis of the meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has recorded a finding with regard to the contributory negligence and has held that the driver of the car as well as the driver of the lorry are responsible to the accident to an extent of 50% each in causing of the accident. The aforesaid finding is based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record and does not call for any interference.

Now, we may deal with the quantum of compensation to the claimant in MFA No.3631/2013. At the time of the accident, the insured, namely, Y.R.Mardish was a young boy, aged about 9 years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘MASTER MALLIKARJUN VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL

So far as claim of the claimants in MVC No.7963/2007 is concerned, the deceased in the instant case was a house wife, namely, Mangala, who was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident. However, it is pertinent to note that

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal in MVC No.7965/2007 and MVC No.7963/2007 is modified. So far as MVC No.7964/2007 and 7966/2007 are concerned, the rate of interest in the aforesaid