Partly allowed

The Legal Manager, v. Ratnavva W/O Shankarappa Tattimani

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2018MFA/102253/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court modified the trial court's award of compensation for loss of dependency by increasing the personal expenses deduction from 1/3rd to 50% for major adult sons and increased conventional heads to Rs.70,000 per Supreme Court guidance, reducing the total.

What did the court decide?

Compensation modified from Rs.7,41,144 to Rs.6,03,400 by adjusting personal expenses deduction to 50% and increasing conventional heads to Rs.70,000 with 6% interest.

The Legal Manager, Vs Ratnavva W/O Shankarappa Tattimani — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

¶5

M.F.A.No.102253/2014 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE LEGAL MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI. ... APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

A N D :

¶10

SMT.RATNAVVA W/O SHANKARAPPA TATTIMANI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O SANNA ONI, NAGASHETTIKOPPA, HUBLI.

¶11

SHASHIDHAR S/O SHANKARAPPA TATTIMANI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PETTY BUSINESS, R/O: SANNA ONI, NAGASHETTIKOPPA, HUBLI.

¶12

SHRIDHAR S/O SHANKARAPPA TATTIMANI, AGE: 31 YEARS, R/O: SANNA ONI, NAGASHETTIKOPPA, HUBLI.

¶13

SATYAPRAKASH S/O SIDDAPPA MENSINAKAI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF CAR, R/O: NO. 64, BHUANESHWARI NAGAR,

¶14

NAGASHETTIKOPPA, HUBLI - 23. ...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI H.R.GUNDAPPA, ADV FOR R1 TO R3,

¶16

R4 SERVED)

¶17

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.05.2014, PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.438/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT., HUBLI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.7,41,144/- WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION.

¶19

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The present appeal is preferred by the appellantInsurer assailing the judgment and award dated 09.05.2014 passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT., Hubballi in M.V.C.No.438/2013.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶23

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, the same is heard finally and disposed of.

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

¶25

¶26

The death of the deceased in the accident which occurred on 01.01.2013 is not in dispute. So also, the involvement of the offending vehicle insured with respondent No.2-Insurance Company. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer that though petitioners 2 and 3 are major sons, Tribunal while deducting personal expenses has deducted only 1/3^rd instead of deducting 50% and the same requires to be set aside. He further submitted that while calculating the loss of dependency, the pension amount which petitioner No.1 is receiving as family pension is not deducted. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal by modifying the award.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants vehemently argued and contended that the pensionary benefits of the deceased while calculating loss of dependency cannot be deducted as they are not co-related to the pecuniary advantages. In order to substantiate his

¶28

¶29

argument, he relied upon the decision of division bench of this Court in the case of SMT.BHAGIRATHI AND OTHERS

¶30

VS. RAHUL AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 (IV) KLJ 408 and he further relied upon the decision in the case of

¶31

VIMAL KANWAR AND OTHERS VS. KISHORE DAN AND

¶32

OTHERS reported in 2013 (2) GLH 42. He further submitted that respondents 2 and 3 are also dependants and the trial Court after considering the same fact has rightly deducted 1/3^rd towards personal expenses. He further submitted that it is the case of the petitioners that the deceased after retirement was also looking after two acres of land and due to his death, there is loss of income from the agricultural land and the same has not been considered and appreciated by the trial Court. He further submitted that the amount awarded under conventional heads is also on the lower side. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶33

¶34

7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the

¶35

judgment of the trial Court.

¶36

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

¶37

appellant that petitioners 2 and 3 are major sons and were not dependant on the deceased and as such, the Court below ought to have deducted 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased. As could be seen from the judgment and award of the trial Court, the Court below has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.12,700/- p.m. which he used to get as pension and thereafter after deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses of the deceased has awarded the compensation of Rs.7,11,144/towards loss of dependency. Though under normal circumstances, the method adopted appears to be justifiable but when admittedly petitioners 2 and 3 are

¶38

major sons and were not dependant, under such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income towards the personal expenses of the

¶39

¶40

deceased and thereafter ought to have calculated loss of dependency. If the income at the rate of Rs.12,700/- p.m. is taken and after deducting 50% and admittedly as the deceased was aged about 63 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 7 and in that light, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.5,33,400/- towards loss of dependency.

¶41

Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer that the Tribunal ought to have deducted pension which is going to be received by the 1^st petitioner after the death of the deceased but in view of the decision quoted supra and the ratio laid down therein, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable and the same is rejected.

¶42

On re-appreciation and reconsideration of the judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards the conventional heads and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶43

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY

¶44

¶45

SETHI reported in (AIR 2017 SC 5157), the petitioner No.1 is entitled to an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads. In that light, if the compensation is re-assessed, the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,03,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. instead of Rs.7,41,144/- awarded by the Tribunal which appears to be on the higher side and the same is modified as stated above. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award is modified to the extent indicated above.

¶46

The amount in deposit may be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith along with the lower court records.

¶47

The amount in excess, if any, after calculation be refunded to the appellant-Insurer after proper identification and acknowledgment.

¶48

(Sd/-) JUDGE

¶49

Jm/-

The Legal Manager, v. Ratnavva W/O Shankarappa Tattimani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Legal Manager, v. Ratnavva W/O Shankarappa Tattimani

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

Mahadevi Vs Basayya Nagayya Pujari

Krupa Manjusha W/O Kamal K Vs Kamal K Koyan S/O Koyan a

Suman W/O Sunil Nimbal, Vs Sunil S/O Basavaraj Nimbal

The New India Assurance Co, Ltd. Vs Revati Datta Durgekar

Kumari.Sheela D/O Kenchappagouda Patil, Vs Smt.Shantavva W/O Shivalingappa Koujalagi

Shri. Rafiq S/O Meerasab Mirjabhai Vs Shri. Kashinath S/O Mahadevappa Hindiholi