Partly allowed

The Divisional Manager v. Devaraddi

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2020MFA/100052/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Motor Accident Claims Cases, the High Court increased compensation against an insurance company from Rs.10,71,000 to Rs.11,81,000 by adjusting income assessment and applying Supreme Court precedents on compensation heads. The Court also reduced interest from 8% to 7%.

What did the court decide?

Increased total compensation to Rs.11,81,000; interest reduced to 7% from date of claim excluding delay period. Awarded specific sums for loss of consortium and conventional heads.

The Divisional Manager Vs Devaraddi — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

MFA CROB. NO.100180 OF 2014 (MV-D)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MFA NO.100052 OF 2014 (MV)

¶10

IN M.F.A.CROB.NO.100180/2014 (MV)

¶11

BETWEEN :

¶12

DEVARADDI S/O NARAYANARADDI DONI AGE : 56 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O NAVALI, TQ: NAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶13

PADMAVATI @ SUREKA W/O DEVARADDI DONI, AGE : 50 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O NAVALI, TQ: NAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶14

… CROSS OBJECTORS

¶15

(BY SRI A.M.MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR SRI H.N.GULARADDI, ADV.)

¶16

AND :

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COM. LTD., OPP: KITTLE COLLEGE, P.B.ROAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS, ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,

¶18

¶19

NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS HUB, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580020.

¶20

M.R.PALANIAPPAN, AGE : MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF BUS, R/O 580 SHIVABASAVANAGAR, BELGAUM, TQ. & DIST: BELGAUM.

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI G.N.RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R.1 NOTICE TO R2: DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

THIS MFA CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 22 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING THIS COURT TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2013 PASSED BY THE 1^ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND ADDL. M.A.C.T. DHARWAD SITTING AT NAVALAGUND IN MVC.NO.46/2013 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶24

IN M.F.A.NO.100052/2014 (MV)

¶25

BETWEEN :

¶26

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., OPP: KITTLE COLLEGE, P.B.ROAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS, ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS HUB, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580020.

¶27

… APPELLANT

¶28

(BY SRI G.N.RAICHUR, ADV.)

¶29

AND :

¶30

DEVARADDI S/O NARAYANARADDI DONI AGE : 56 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O NAVALI, TQ: NAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶31

¶32

PADMAVATI @ SUREKA W/O DEVARADDI DONI, AGE : 50 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O NAVALI, TQ: NAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶33

M.R.PALANIAPPAN, AGE : MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF BUS, R/O 580 SHIVABASAVANAGAR, BELGAUM, TQ. & DIST: BELGAUM.

¶34

… RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI A.M.MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR SRI H.N.GULARADDI, ADV. FOR R.1 & 2) (NOTICE TO R.3 : SERVED)

¶36

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2013 PASSED BY THE 1^ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND ADDL. M.A.C.T. DHARWAD SITTING AT NAVALAGUND IN MVC.NO.46/2013 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶37

THE CROSS OBJECTION AND THE APPEAL ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

¶40

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶41

This appeal and cross objection are listed for consideration of interlocutory application for

¶42

condoning the delay of 200 days in preferring the Cross-Objection.

¶43

¶44

I.A.No.1/15 is preferred in the year 2015.

¶45

But the same has not been diligently pursued. The appeal is of the year 2014 and the claim petition is of the year 2012. It was incumbent on the claimants to have been more diligent in prosecuting this cross objection. Having failed to display any urgency and on account of lack of diligence in prosecuting the application, we deem it proper to deny interest for the period of delay ie., from the date of award till today in respect of the enhanced award amount. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/15 is allowed.

¶46

The brief facts of the case are that the son of the claimants was a bachelor and on 13.10.2012 at about 11.45 a.m. near Kumbaragoppa Cross on Yamanur-Navalgund road, the deceased Shrinivasraddi had stopped his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-26/L-1967 and at that time the offending

¶47

¶48

bus bearing Reg.No.KA-22/B-3961 came from

¶49

Navalgund side being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle and the deceased suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot itself. The body was shifted to Government Hospital, Navalgund and after completion of postmortem procedures, body was shifted by the appellants for conducting the last rites.

¶50

It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that

¶51

the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- from his business of Duran Company Solar Lights and that he was employed by Prasanna Industries, Gadag and he was also carrying on agricultural work in the fields and in all he was earning about Rs.25,000/- p.m. That the appellants were wholly dependants on the deceased for their sustenance and on account of the sad demise, they have lost the sole breadwinner and it has

¶52

¶53

caused emotional and financial distress to the appellants.

¶54

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶55

Corporation would submit that the future prospects added to the income by the Tribunal is on the higher

¶56

side and that the interest awarded at the rate of 8% is also on the higher side. On these grounds, the appeal by the Corporation.

¶57

In the above background, the short point that

¶58

arise for consideration is, whether the sum awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

¶59

We have carefully perused the judgment and

¶60

award. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered opinion that the notional income adopted by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The accident is of the year 2012 and the Courts in the absence of proof of income normally resort to the

¶61

¶62

notional income as determined by the Legal Services Authority in consultation with the Insurance

¶63

Companies. In the instant case, the Court below has disbelieved the claim of the income of the deceased from business, employment and agriculture. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in disbelieving the same as it is impossible for an individual to do all the activities together and at the same time the claimants have virtually contradicted themselves in this regard. Hence, we do not find any error in the Tribunal rejecting the salary certificate said to have been placed before the Court. The Tribunal has observed that the author of the salary certificate has not been examined. That apart, we are of the opinion that the salary certificate could have been corroborated by producing the passbook. Certainly, a person who carries on business and is employed and who is also carrying on agricultural work, would definitely be

¶64

¶65

earning handsome amount and any prudent businessman would have maintained a bank account. In that view of the matter, the appellants having failed to place on record any corroborative material, we are inclined to affirm the findings of the Tribunal with regard to rejecting the proof placed by the appellants with regard to the income of the deceased.

¶66

Be that as it may, we are of the view that the

¶67

Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the academic achievements of the deceased. It has to be noted that he is a B.A., B.Ed. degree holder and that he has completed his B.Ed. degree in first class. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to adopt the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- p.m. This is an amount that he could have easily earned by holding tuitions and conducting classes. In that view of the matter, the appellants are entitled to compensation calculated as below:

¶68

¶69

Rs.10,71,000/-

¶70

As rightly contended by the learned counsel

¶71

for the Corporation, the Tribunal has erred in adopting 50% of the income under the head ‘future prospects’. Further, as rightly contended, the sum awarded under the head ‘loss of estate, love, care and transportation of dead body’ is also contrary to the sum stipulated in this regard by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶72

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., VS. PRANAY

¶73

SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . Accordingly, the appellant should be entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the conventional heads.

¶74

As rightly contended by the learned counsel

¶75

for the claimants, the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation under the head ‘loss of filial

¶76

¶77

consortium’. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., VS. NANU RAM reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 , the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.80,000/- under the said head.

¶78

In all, the appellants are entitled to a total

¶79

compensation of Rs.11,81,000/-.

¶80

With regard to the rate of interest, we are of the opinion that the interest awarded at 8% by the Tribunal is on the higher side and we deem it proper to award interest at the rate of 7% from the date of claim petition till the date of satisfaction, excluding the period of delay which is disallowed by this Court while disposing I.A.1/2015.

¶81

Accordingly, both the appeals are partly allowed. Office to draw the decree accordingly. The TCR and the amount in deposit to be transmitted to

¶82

¶83

the Tribunal. Out of the total compensation, a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- and proportionate interest shall be kept in FD for a period of 10 years in the name of the mother ie., 2^nd appellant and Rs.2,50,000/- and proportionate interest shall be kept in FD for a period of 10 years in the name of the father ie., 1^st appellant and remaining amount shall be released in favour of the 1^st appellant along with proportionate interest.

¶84

(SD/-) JUDGE

¶85

(SD/-) JUDGE

¶86

The Divisional Manager v. Devaraddi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager v. Devaraddi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.R. Hemantanavar Vs the Land Acquisition Officer

Tofel Khan Vs S. Noorullah S/O Mahaboob Sab

Laxman S/O Yallappa Sunkad Vs the State of Karnataka

Devaraddi Vs the Divisional Manager

Shri.Maruti S/O. Yamanappa Artagalla @ Attagall Vs He Divisional Controller Nwkrtc

Chandrakant S/O Tammanna Majagi Vs Karnataka State Bar Council