Partly allowed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.Lalitha Bai

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2020MFA/3664/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of Motor Accidents Appeal No. 3664/2014 and Cross Objection No. 166/2014 regarding compensation for a fatal accident. While the insurer's challenge to liability was rejected, the court enhanced the future prospects percentage from 15% to 25% per Supreme Court guidelines, reducing the total awarded compensation to Rs. 13,70,000 from Rs. 14,21,052.

What did the court decide?

The compensation award was reduced to Rs. 13,70,000 with interest at 6% p.a. The insurer must deposit this amount within 90 days of receiving the certified copy.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.Lalitha Bai — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 09^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.3664 OF 2014(MV-D) C/W MFA.CROB.NO.166 OF 2014(MV-D) IN MFA.NO.3664 OF 2014(MV-D)

¶9

IN MFA.NO.3664 OF 2014

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE, BINDU, II FLOOR NEAR DOOM LIGHT CIRCLE NEW EXTENSION, KOLAR TOWN NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX, 144, MG ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 ....APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SMT.LALITHA BAI

W/O LATE D. GOUTHAM CHAND NOW AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶16

2 . RAKESH KUMAR S/O LATE D. GOUTHAM CHAND NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶17

3 . POONAM D/O LATE D. GOUTHAM CHAND NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ALL R/O C/O MOHANLAL JAI 1ST MAIN, KURUBARPET KOLAR TOWN-563 101

¶18

4 . M/S WARDHA COAL TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., AL-MAJRI COLLIERY PO-SHVIAJI NAGAR TALUK BHADRAVATHI CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT MAHARASHTRA STATE-571 402 REPTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR

¶19

5 . MANNE MURAHARI S/O RAMAMURTHY MAJOR R/O BALAKRISHNAPURA 1ST LINE, 1ST ROAD, BAPTIA ANDHRA PRADESH-568 101

¶20

….RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. PANDURANGA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI. SREEVIDYA G.K, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.122/2008 ON THE

¶23

¶24

FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, KOLAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.14,21,052/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶25

IN MFA.CROB.NO.166 OF 2014

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

1 . LALITHA BAI W/O LATE D GOUTHAM CHAND AGED 50 YEARS

¶28

2 . RAKESH KUMAR S/O LATE D GOUTHAM CHAND AGED 33 YEARS

¶29

3 . POONAM D/O LATE D GOUTHAM CHAND AGED 29 YEARS

¶30

ALL ARE RESIDING AT C/O MOHANLAL JAIN 1ST MAIN KURUBARPET KOLAR TOWN-563 101

¶31

....CROSS OBJECTORS

¶32

(BY SRI. VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

1 . M/S. WARDHA COAL TRANSPORT PVT LTD A1-MAJRI COLLIERY PO SHIVAJI NAGAR TAH BHADRAVATHI CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT

¶35

¶36

MAHARASHTRA STATE-442 401 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR

¶37

2 . NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE BINDU, 2ND FLOOR NEAR DOOM LIGHT CIRCLE NEW EXTENSION KOLAR TOWN-560 101

¶38

3 . MR. MANNE MURAHARI S/O RAMAMURTHY R/O BALAKRISHNAPRAM 1ST LINE, 1ST ROAD BAPITIA-517 421 ANDHRA PRADESH

¶39

….RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. PANDURANGA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. SREEVIDYA G.K, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶41

THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.3664/2014 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.122/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENCHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶42

THIS MFA AND MFA CROB COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 14.2.2014 passed in MVC.No.122/2008 by the MACT and I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar. MFA.No.3664/2014 is filed by the Insurance company on the ground of liability as well as quantum whereas the claimants have filed MFA.Crob.No.166/2014 seeking enhancement.

¶46

For the sake of convenience, the parties

¶47

are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal.

¶48

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶49

The claimants filed a claim petition contending

¶50

that on 25.3.2007 at about 4.30 p.m. when the husband of claimant No.1 namely D. Goutham Chand Bhandari along with his family members was returning

¶51

back to Mulbagal town in an Indica car bearing Regn.No.KA.01/MC-3026 and when the said car

¶52

¶53

reached Jonnathali Centre on NH-5 of Martur, Prakasham District, Andhra Pradesh, the driver of the Loader Machine bearing Regn.No.MH-34-M-3797 came in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly crossed the road in a wrong direction and dashed against the Indica car which was proceeding on the left side of the road and thereby caused the accident. As a result, the husband of claimant No.1 namely D. Goutham Chand Bhandari sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The claimants being the wife and children filed a claim petition by contending that deceased had an income of Rs.2,94,000/-. The claimants specifically contended in the claim petition that the deceased was the Proprietor of Jewel and Pawn Broker shop and relied on income-tax returns for the year 2007-08. They contended that they were totally dependant on the

¶54

¶55

income of the deceased and hence filed claimed compensation of Rs.30 lakhs.

¶56

The second respondent-Insurance company on receipt of notice contested the proceedings by filing objections to the claim petition. Though issuance of policy was admitted, however, the second respondentInsurance company set up a defence that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence and hence, denied the liability to pay the compensation. The second respondentInsurance Company also disputed the age, income and avocation of the deceased.

¶57

The Tribunal based on pleadings, framed the following issues:

¶58

"1.Whether the petitioners prove that accident occurred on 24.05.2007 at 10.30 a.m. near Jonnathali Centre on NH-5 of Martur, Prakasham District, Andhra Pradesh is due to the rash and negligent driving of the

¶59

¶60

Loader Machine vehicle bearing Regn.No.MHM-3797 and D.Gowtham Chand Bhandari sustained injuries and succumbed to the accidental injuries at the spot?

¶61

2.Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the driver of the Loader Machine vehicle bearing Regn.No.MH.34-M-3797 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?

¶62

3.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what extent and from whom?

¶63

4.What order or award?"

¶64

The claimants in support of their contention

¶65

examined the claimant No.2 as P.W.1 and in support of ocular evidence produced documents as per Exs.P1 to P12. The second respondent-Insurance Company examined its Branch Manager as R.W.1 and relied on Exs.R1 to R8.

¶66

¶67

The Tribunal having examined the oral and documentary evidence answered issue No.1 in the affirmative.

¶68

The Tribunal while determining compensation, has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-. By adding 15% towards future prospects and deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses and applying multiplier 13 has awarded Rs.11,96,052/towards loss of dependency. under conventional heads, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- and in all Rs.14,21,052/- is awarded with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. Being aggrieved by the same, both the Insurance Company as well as the claimants have preferred these appeals.

¶69

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶70

Insurance company would vehemently argue and contend that the compensation determined by the

¶71

¶72

Tribunal is on the higher side. Though several grounds are raised in regard to breach of policy conditions, however, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would not seriously urge this ground.

¶73

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants would vehemently contend that the compensation determined by the Tribunal is inadequate. Further submits that the Tribunal ought to have deduced 1/4th towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd. Hence, requests this Court to reassess the loss of dependency.

¶74

6. Perused the pleadings of the rival parties and examined the oral and documentary evidence.

¶75

7. Regarding Liability:

¶76

Though learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has raised a ground questioning

¶77

¶78

the liability however, there is absolutely no clinching evidence lead in by the Insurance company to show that the driver of the loading machine did not possess valid and effective driving licence and no evidence is placed on record.

¶79

8. Regarding Quantum:

¶80

Insofar as quantum is concerned, we would find some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the claimants. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 49 years as per the post-mortem and inquest report and hence, the Tribunal was not justified in adding 15% towards future prospects. In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company .vs. Pranay

¶81

Sethi and others (2017 ACJ 2700) 25 % has to be added towards future prospects to the age group of above 40-50 years. In that view of the matter, without disturbing the income assessed by the

¶82

¶83

Tribunal, the income of the deceased is re-assessed at Rs.10,000x25/100=Rs.12,500/-. By deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 13, the amount payable towards loss of dependency is re-redetermined at Rs.12,500x12x13x2/3= Rs.13,00,000/-. Appellants 2 to 3 are majors. Hence, only claimant No.1 is awarded Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium and further Rs.30,000/is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, under conventional heads a sum of Rs.70,000/is awarded. Hence, the total compensation redetermined by this Court comes to Rs.13,70,000/- as against Rs. 14,21,052/- awarded by the Tribunal, to which the claimants are entitled with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation.

¶84

9. Hence, the following:

¶85

¶86

ORDER

¶87

i] Appeal filed by the insurer in MFA No.3664/2014 is allowed in part. ii] MFA Crob.166/2014 filed by the claimants is dismissed. iii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and reduced to Rs.13,70,000/- as against Rs.14,21,052/which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶88

iv] The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact. v] The insurance company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of

¶89

¶90

receipt of the certified copy of the

¶91

judgment and order.

¶92

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

¶93

vii] Draw modified award accordingly.

¶94

viii] The Registry shall transfer the amount in deposit with original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.

¶95

ix] All the pending I.As stand disposed of accordingly.

¶96

Sd/JUDGE

¶97

Sd/JUDGE

¶98

*alb/-.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.Lalitha Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.Lalitha Bai

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

Mr. Thomas V.V Vs the Managing Director

The Legal Executive Vs Smt Sharmila

Sharmila Vs Basavaraju

The Managing Director Vs M.S. Vidyashree

C Chandrashekar Vs the Managing Director

The Managing Director Vs Smt. N. Sujatha