Partly allowed

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Shri S K Anamul

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2020MFA/2692/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Insurance Company appealed against a Motor Accident Compensation Tribunal's award of Rs.18,00,000. The Court reduced the compensation to Rs.16,22,000 by adjusting the future prospects addition from 50% to 40%, citing National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi.

What did the court decide?

The total compensation is modified and reduced to Rs.16,22,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Shri S K Anamul — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

MFA.NO.2692 OF 2016(MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DO UNIT VI (671400) NO.202, 2^ND FLOOR NORTH WING, BRIGADE PLAZA SUBEDAR CHATRAM ROAD ANANDA RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 009 REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE (MOTOR TP HUB) THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS NO.9, M.G.ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 (BY SRI. B.R. VENKATESH KAMATH, ADVOCATE)

....APPELLANT

AND:

1 . SHRI S K ANAMUL

S/O SHRI S.K.MUSLIM AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶16

2 . SMT.JOBEDA BIBI W/O SHRI S.K.ANAMUL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶17

BOTH ARE R/AT MAITHUNA PAIKBAR VILLAGE MANDERPUR (POST) PURBA MEDINIPUR DISTRICT WEST BENGAL -721 433

¶18

3 . M/S. BENGALURU MEGACABS PVT LTD. OPP. COUNTRY CLUB BAGALUR CROSS YELAHANKA BANGALORE-562 149

¶19

….RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR RODNAVARY, ADVOCATE FOR R3, SRI. B.M. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:21.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.4218/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.18,00,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶22

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The captioned appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.4218/2014 on the ground of quantum.

¶26

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶27

The respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants filed

¶28

claim petition for having lost their son Shaik Israil @ S.K.Israil in a road traffic accident dated 07.07.2014.

¶29

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 specifically contended that their son was returning home after finishing his cooking work at TCH a branch of Chevron Hotel. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 stated in the claim petition that when he reached near Windsor Manor Hotel, near T.Chowdaiah Road, at that juncture, the driver of the

¶30

Meru Cab car bearing Reg.No.KA-50-6969 came in a

¶31

¶32

rash and negligent manner and dashed against the son of respondent Nos.1 and 2. On account of the multiple fatal injuries sustained, he was immediately shifted to Victoria Hospital where he was declared brought dead. The claimants contended that deceased was hardly aged about 22 years and was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- by working as a Cook and the claimants contended that they were totally dependent on the income of the deceased. Hence, filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,17,000/-.

¶33

The appellant/Insurance Company on receipt of notice filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the claim petition. The appellant/Insurance Company specifically contended in the written statement that it is the deceased who was proceeding on the middle of the road and as such,

¶34

has contributed to the accident. On these set of

¶35

¶36

defence, the appellant/Insurance Company sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶37

Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal formulated the following issues:

¶38

"1) Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 07.07.2014 at about 11.45 p.m. near Windsor Manner Hotel, T.Chowdaiah Road, Bengaluru, within the jurisdiction of High Grounds Traffic Police station on account of rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.KA50-6969 by its driver?

¶39

2) Whether the respondents proves that the accident occurred on account of negligent act of the deceased?

¶40

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

¶41

4) What order?"

¶42

The respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants in

¶43

support of their contention examined respondent No.1

¶44

¶45

as PW.1 and one independent witness as PW.2 and in support of their ocular evidence, have produced documentary evidence vide Exs.P-1 to P-20. The appellant/Insurance Company has not lead in any rebuttal evidence.

¶46

The Tribunal having assessed the oral and documentary evidence, answered issue No.1 in the affirmative by holding that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Meru car. The Tribunal while determining the compensation has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- and by adding 50% towards future prospects and by deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased has awarded a sum of Rs.16,20,000/- under the head loss of dependency. Under conventional heads, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,80,000/-. The Tribunal,

¶47

¶48

in all, has awarded total compensation of

¶49

Rs.18,00,000/-.

¶50

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the Tribunal was not justified in adding 50% future prospects. He would further submit that the deceased had served as an employee only for a period of 7 days and had studied upto 6^th standard and hence, he would submit to this Court that the Tribunal erred in adding 50% towards future prospects. On these set of grounds, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would request this Court to reduce the compensation.

¶51

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants would

¶52

vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the parents have lost their son who was hardly aged 22 years and hence, the quantum determined by the

¶53

¶54

Tribunal is fair and just and would not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶55

Heard learned counsel for the

¶56

appellant/Insurance Company and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants.

¶57

The Tribunal having assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- has added 50% towards future prospects. On perusal of the evidence on record, it is forthcoming that deceased was working as a Cook at Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Enterprises (TCH), a branch of Chevron Hotel, Bangalore, which is admittedly a private sector. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was not justified in adding 50% towards future prospects which is contrary to the guidelines laid down in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. In that view of the matter, we would deem it fit to add 40% instead of

¶58

¶59

50% towards future prospects. The income assessed by the Tribunal would remain undisturbed. By taking the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- and by adding 40% towards future prospects, the income is assessed at Rs.14,000/- and by deducting 50% towards personal expenses and by applying the multiplier of 18, the compensation payable under the head loss of dependency works out to Rs.15,12,000/(14,000x12x18x1/2). The claimants are the parents of the deceased who have lost their son. In that view of the matter, under conventional heads, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation re-determined by this Court comes to Rs.16,22,000/- as against Rs.18,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶60

¶61

7. Hence, the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and reduced to Rs.16,22,000/- as against Rs.18,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶64

iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact.

¶65

iv) The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶66

v) The modified compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

¶67

¶68

vi) Draw modified award accordingly. vii) The Registry shall transfer the amount in deposit with original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.

¶69

viii) All pending I.As., if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Shri S K Anamul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Shri S K Anamul

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

Smt.Bharathi N Vs D Naveen

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt. M. T. Manjamma @ M.T. Manjakka

The Divisional Manager Vs Sri. D. Chandrashekara Reddy

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt Rekha R

M/S. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Akshath P Acharya

Sri Narahari Y v Vs the Managing Director