August 8, 2018
A Bench of Supreme Court Judges Justice Rangan Gogoi and Justice R. Banumathi in Civil Appeal No. 8144 of 2018, Shamanna and Another V. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & ors reversed the Judgment dated 14.09.2016 passed by High Court of Karnataka and partly allowed the appeal filed by the Vehicle owner.
Facts of the case
On 14.04.2008, Shankareppa Pattar son of the appellants/claimants was
travelling in a jeep bearing Reg.No.KA22/M-3805. The jeep was driven
negligently due to which door of the jeep suddenly opened and Shankareppa
was thrown out of the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries and died in
the hospital. In the claim petition filed by the appellants/parents of the
deceased Shankareppa, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,55,500/-
with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till
realisation. Since the driver of the jeep had no valid driving licence at
the time of the accident and since there was violation of the terms of the
insurance policy, the Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the
compensation to the claimants and granted liberty to the insurance company
to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
Being aggrieved by the award directing the insurer to pay the compensation
amount to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle,
the insurance company filed appeal before the High Court. The claimants have
also filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The High Court
referred to its own judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
K.C. Subramanyam MANU/KA/0945/2012 : ILR 2012 KAR 5241 and held that the
Supreme Court directed the insurance company to make payment to the
claimants and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in exercise
of its discretionary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court observed that power under Article 142 of the Constitution is
vested only with the Supreme Court and such power is not vested with the
High Court or the Tribunal and set aside the award passed by the Tribunal
directing the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants and
recover the same from the owner of the vehicle is not sustainable. The High
Court held that only the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to make
the payment of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. The High
Court has enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.3,55,500/- to Rs.4,94,700/-. To determine the loss of dependency, the
High Court has taken into consideration the age of the deceased Shankareppa
and has adopted multiplier of '18' instead of multiplier of '14'. Being
aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court setting aside the direction to
the insurance company to "pay and recover", the appellants/claimants have
preferred this appeal.
While partly allowing the appeal the court said that:
"In the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court insofar as
enhancement of the compensation to Rs.4,94,700/- is affirmed. Insofar as
direction of the impugned judgment directing the appellants/claimants to
recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle is set aside and the
appeal is partly allowed. The first Respondent insurance company shall pay
the enhanced compensation to the appellants/claimants along with the accrued
interest and the insurance company shall recover the same from the owner of
the vehicle. No costs."
Read the Judgment of Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 8144 of 2018, Shamanna and Another V. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & ors dated 8.8.2018
Medical college renewal of course, consider for next year, keep security deposit, Supreme Court
Land acquisition in Pondicherry, Government appeal dismissed by Supreme Court
88 iron ore mining leases granted 2nd renewal by Government in Goa cancelled by Supreme Court