Partly allowed

The Branch Manager United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Somsingh S/O Chandu Rathod and Ors.

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2014MFA/31747/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident death claim, the Court modified the Tribunal's award. The Court reassessed the deceased's contribution at Rs. 3,000/month and held that a 50% personal expense deduction applies, denying future prospects calculation due to unsecured income.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award of the Tribunal modified. Insurer directed to pay Rs.6,88,000 with interest at 6% p.a. 50% of each respondent's share to be deposited in a fixed deposit for duration.

The Branch Manager United India Insurance Co.Ltd… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

MFA 31747/13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA GULBARGA BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014

¶5

BEFORE:

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.31747 OF 2013 [MV]

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., S.S. Front Road, Sangam Building, Bijapur, Rep. herein by Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. ltd., Super Market, Gulbarga-585 101. … APPELLANT/S [By Sri. Shivanand Patil, Adv.]

¶10

AND:

¶11

Somasing, S/o. Chandu Rathod, Age: 51 years, Occ: Labour Contractor, R/o. Ramteerth L.T., Post: Atharga, Tq. Indi, Dist: Bijapur-586 112.

¶12

Sharubai, W/o. Somsing Rathod, Age: 41 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Ramteerth L.T., Post: Athrga, Tq: Indi, Dist: Bijapur-586 112.

¶13

MFA 31747/13

¶14

¶15

Rajkumar, S/o. Sahadev Walikar, Age: 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Ingalgi, Tq: Indi, Dist: Bijapur-586 112, [previous owner of tom-tom auto].

¶16

Namdev, S/o. Shankar Rathod, Age: 36 years, Occ: tom-tom auto, R/o. Atharga L.T., Tal: Indi, Dist: Bijapur-586 112, [present owner of tom-tom auto].

¶17

… RESPONDENT/S

¶18

[Sri. Bapugouda Siddappa, Adv. for R1 & R2. Notice to R3 & R4 is served.]

¶19

¶20

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act against the Judgment and Award dated 30.04.2013 passed in MVC No.510/12 on the file of MACT-IV, Bijapur, at Bijapur, partly allowing the claim petition and awarding compensation of Rs.8,84,000-00 with interest at 6% p.a.

¶21

This MFA coming on for Final Hearing, this day the Court delivered the following:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The insurer has filed this appeal challenging

¶24

the quantum of compensation awarded to respondents 1 and 2 for the death of their son-Sachin in the motor

¶25

MFA 31747/13

¶26

¶27

vehicle accident that occurred on 08.03.2012 at 5.00 p.m. on Atharga-Ramteerth Road.

¶28

The deceased was bachelor and the claimants

¶29

are his parents. The deceased was doing agriculture in addition to contract work. The Tribunal after recording the evidence, granted compensation of Rs.8,84,000-00 with interest at 6% p.a. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the insurer has filed this appeal.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

¶31

The point that arises for my consideration

¶32

is;

¶33

Whether the compensation awarded is on the higher side and if so, to what extent?

¶34

It is the contention of learned counsel for

¶35

the insurer that the assessment of future prospects

¶36

MFA 31747/13

¶37

¶38

at 50% of the income of the deceased by the Tribunal is improper for the reason that there was no future

¶39

prospects in the service rendered by the deceased. Hence, he submits that the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He also submits that the deduction has to be 50% of the income and the deduction of 1/3rd by the Tribunal is erroneous.

¶40

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal.

¶41

It is not in dispute that deceased Sachin

¶42

was aged 22 years and a bachelor at the time of the accident. No documents were produced with regard to his income. It is on the basis of the oral evidence that the Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.4,000-00 p.m. The accident is of the year 2012. Considering the averment that the deceased was doing contract work in addition to agriculture, I think it would be just and proper to consider his income at

¶43

MFA 31747/13

¶44

¶45

Rs.6,000-00 p.m. Deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. His contribution to the family would be Rs.3,000-00 p.m. The principle laid-down in Sarala Verma Case regarding future prospects at 50% does not apply to the facts of this Case for the reason that his income is not a secured income and the question of assessing the future prospect does not arise. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to;

¶46

Rs.6,000 x 12 x 18 = Rs.6,48,000-00 2

¶47

Deduction in case of a bachelor has to be 50% and

¶48

not 1/3^rd . Therefore, towards loss of dependency,

¶49

the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.6,48,000-00. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.20,000-00 on conventional heads. I think another sum of Rs.20,000-00 will have to be paid on these heads. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.6,48,000-00 towards loss of future income and

¶50

Rs.40,000-00 towards conventional heads i.e., Rs.6,88,000-00 with interest at 6% p.a. To this

¶51

MFA 31747/13

¶52

¶53

extent, the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal requires modification.

¶54

Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The Judgment and Award of the Tribunal is modified, directing the insurer [appellants herein] to pay a sum of Rs.6,88,000-00 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its payment.

¶55

The claimants are entitled to equal share. 50% of their share shall be deposited in any nationalized bank in their name for a period of 5 [Five] years. The amount in excess shall be paid to them. The amount in deposit in this Court be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on the fixed deposit periodically.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

JUDGE.

¶58

Ksm*

The Branch Manager United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Somsingh S/O Chandu Rathod and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Somsingh S/O Chandu Rathod and Ors.

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Bijapur, Vs Razak S/O Hazrathkha Pathan,Ors

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs a Laxman

Smt Yellamma Vs Amaranna

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Fathimabi W/O Late Najeer Anr.

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Ambika W/O Late Ganesh Gujjatti and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Ramachandra S/O N.R.Prabhu