Partly allowed

The Branch Manager v. Sri Prakasha

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2012MFA/5379/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award excessive. The court reduced the compensation from Rs. 5,55,400 to Rs. 5,24,200 by applying a correct multiplier of 16 and adjusting the dependency calculation to 50% of total income.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs.5,55,400 to Rs.5,24,200; insurance company directed to deposit amount within two months.

The Branch Manager Vs Sri Prakasha — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA

¶6

M.F.A. NO.5379/2008 (MVC)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. UDUPI, REPRESENTED BY ITS THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE P.B.NO.88, B.H.ROAD SHIMOGA 577201

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI M.U.POONACHA, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

SRI PRAKASHA S/O NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶13

SMT. SHOBHA W/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶14

BOTH ARE R/AT HAANAMBI HOSAKERE KEREDANDE SRINGERI

¶15

SRI SHISHUPAL

¶16

S/O KUMAR BHAG AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT RANJALA SEETHAL NILAYA KARKALA

¶17

¶18

SRI JEEVANDAS ADYANTHAYA S/O N.S.ADYANTHAYA MAJOR R/AT KRISHNA NEAR KMC HOSPITAL MANGALORE

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(RESPONDENTS SERVED)

¶21

MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 1.2.2008 PASSED IN MVC NO.422/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-1 AND MACT-III, CHIKMAGALUR, AWARDINAG A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,55,400/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

This appeal is by the insurer of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award of the Tribunal on the ground of quantum of compensation and seeking reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the judgment and award of

¶26

¶27

the Tribunal. The respondents-claimants were served but remained unrepresented.

¶28

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶29

referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

¶30

As there is no dispute regarding death of deceased Prasad in a road traffic accident occurred on 18.3.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus bearing registration No.KA-19-AE-777 by its driver and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for my consideration in the appeal is:

¶31

“whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for reduction?”

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellant-

¶33

insurer submits that in the absence of proof of income of the deceased, the Tribunal has committed an error

¶34

¶35

in assessing his income at Rs.3,900/- per month. It has also committed an error in deducting 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and taking remaining 2/3^rd of his income as his contribution to family instead of deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses and taking remaining 50% as his contribution to family in the case of death of a bachelor and further it has applied wrong multiplier of ‘17’ instead of ‘16’ based on the age of the mother of the deceased.

¶36

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for appellant and perusing the judgment and award of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it is on the higher side and hence it is required to be reduced.

¶37

The deceased was a bachelor aged about 20 years at the time of his death in the accident as

¶38

¶39

evident from the post mortem report Ex.P-7. The claim petition is filed by his parents seeking compensation under Section 166 of MV Act. The claimants in support of their contention that the deceased was working as a mechanic and earning a sum of Rs.150/- per day except examining the father of the deceased as PW-1 they have not produced any documents establishing the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, considering his age as 20 years, year of accident as 2006 and his avocation as coolie, his income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,900/- per month is just and proper. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SANTHOSH DEVI v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND ORS. reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2892, 30% of his earning has to be added to his income towards his future prospects. So, his total income comes to Rs.5,200/per month (Rs.3,900+1,300). Since, deceased was bachelor, 50%

¶40

¶41

of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and remaining 50% of his income has to be taken as his contribution to family. The multiplier of ‘16’ has to be applied based on the age of his mother, who was 35 years old at the relevant point of time. Therefore, ‘loss of dependency’ works out to Rs.4,99,200/- (5,200 x 1/2 x 16 x 12) and it is awarded as against Rs.5,30,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶42

As Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal

¶43

towards ‘medical expenses, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses and conveyance charges’ is just and proper there is no scope for reduction under these heads.

¶44

Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation:-

¶45

	PARTICULARS	Rs.
1	Loss of Dependency	4,99,200

¶46

¶47

2	Medical expenses, funeral	25,000
	and obsequies ceremony expenses and conveyance charges
	TOTAL	5,24,200
	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	5,55,400
	BALANCE(Reduced)	-31,200

¶48

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above. The claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,24,200/- as against Rs.5,55,400/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced by Rs.31,200/-

¶49

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.5,24,200/together with interest within two months from the

¶50

¶51

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount, if any already deposited.

¶52

Amount, if any deposited in this appeal is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶53

No order as to costs.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

The Branch Manager v. Sri Prakasha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Sri Prakasha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Sharadamma Vs T. Jayaprakash

Nagaraju Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Devananda H M Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Channu S/O Late Channappa Vs M/S S R S Travels

Sri a M Venkatesh Vs Sri B K Mohammed Yousuf

Mother Dairy Vs L Munisubbaiah Reddy