Dismissed

The Branch Manager v. Ningamma

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2020MFA/8126/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident case. While the court acknowledged the insurer's arguments regarding personal expenses and multiplier based on cited Supreme Court precedents, it refused to interfere due to the absence of a cross appeal by the claimant.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal's judgment and award were left undisturbed.

The Branch Manager Vs Ningamma — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8126 OF 2011 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE AT SRI RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, B.H. ROAD, TIPTUR. BY REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5^TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. BY ITS MANAGER

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

[BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC)]

¶11

AND:

¶12

NINGAMMA AGED 65 YEARS, W/O LATE C.S. BHEEMAIAH, DODDAHATTI, SRI KALAMMA TEMPLE STREET, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.

¶13

¶14

MOHAN KUMAR AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. KARERANGAPPA, AJJIGUDE, KANDIKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH G. KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶17

SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 25.11.2011)

¶18

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.03.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.440/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND ADDITIONAL MACT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,23,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the

¶22

quantum of compensation awarded by the Court of the Itinerate Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., at Chikkanayakanahalli (henceforth referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in MVC No.440/2006.

¶23

¶24

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as

¶25

they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶26

The claim petition discloses that on 22.04.2005 at about 1.00 am., in the early morning, the deceased C.B.Thulasiramaiah was riding pillion on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-06-H-5027. When they reached Swathi Motor Cycle Service Station on B.H.Road at Chikkanayakanahalli town, the rider of the said motor cycle, rode it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the electric pole. As a result, C.B.Thulasiramaiah sustained head injuries and died at the spot.

¶27

The claimant is the legal representative of the deceased who contended that the deceased was employed as an Office Accountant and was earning an income of Rs.4,000/- per month. The claimant claimed that due to the death of the deceased, she had lost the financial and emotional support that the deceased used

¶28

¶29

to provide. The claimant therefore, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, from the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶30

The insurer contested the claim petition and

¶31

denied the accident and also contended that the rider of the motor cycle did not possess a valid driving licence.

¶32

Before the Tribunal, the claimant being the

¶33

mother of the deceased was examined as PW1 and the two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P9, while, the insurer did not lead any evidence and did not mark any document.

¶34

The Tribunal considered the age of the

¶35

deceased as 32 years. The claimant did not produce any proof of income of a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month

¶36

which the deceased was earning. Hence, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at a sum

¶37

¶38

of Rs.3,000/- per month and deducted 1/3^rd towards personal expenses and applied the multiplier of ‘17’ and

¶39

awarded the following compensation.

¶40

Heads under which compensation awarded	Amount in Rupees
Loss of dependency (2000x12x17)	4,08,000
Loss of love and affection	10,000
Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses	5,000
Total	4,23,000

¶41

Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of

¶42

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the insurer is in appeal challenging the compensation primarily on two grounds:

¶43

(i) The Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of deducting 1/3^rd of his income.

¶44

(ii) The Tribunal ought to have considered the age of the claimant for the purpose of determining the multiplier.

¶45

¶46

Per contra , the counsel for the claimant

¶47

contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation towards ‘loss of future prospects’ and ought to have awarded adequate compensation towards

¶48

‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of filial love and affection’ and adequate compensation towards ‘funeral expenses’. He also contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the claimant at not less than Rs.4,000/- per month since he was employed as an Office Accountant and was drawing a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month.

¶49

As rightly contended by the counsel for the insurer, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court

¶50

in the case of National Insurance Company Limited

¶51

Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , the Tribunal ought to have considered 50% of the monthly income as the personal expenses of the deceased.

¶52

¶53

In so far as the other contention urged by the insurer is concerned, in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chikkamma and Another Vs. Pravathamma and Another reported in AIR 2017 SC 1732, the question of considering the age of the claimant would not arise. It is the age of the deceased alone which had to be taken into consideration while determining the quantum of compensation.

¶54

Likewise, as contended by the counsel for the claimant, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation towards ‘loss of future prospects’ , having regard to the age of the deceased who was 32 years. The Tribunal also ought to have awarded compensation towards ‘loss of estate’ , in view of the fact that the claimant was the earning member of the family, on whom the claimant was entirely dependent. The Tribunal ought to have awarded adequate compensation towards ‘loss of filial love and affection’ .

¶55

¶56

However, in the absence of any cross appeal filed by the claimant, this Court would not feel it appropriate to interfere with the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to leave the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal undisturbed. Hence, the appeal is dismissed .

¶57

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted

¶58

to the Tribunal for further orders.

¶59

Sd/- JUDGE

¶60

The Branch Manager v. Ningamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Ningamma

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. Laxmamma Vs the Manager

Sri Gangi Reddy Vs P Sreenivasulu Reddy

Praxair India Private Limited Vs Inox Air Products Private Limited

D Madhavamurthy S/O Late v G Doraiswamy Vs R Govindaswamy Since Dead by His Lrs

Hanumantha Naika Vs Sri Pattabi Ramegowda H a

Legal Manager Vs Leela.K @ Leelamma