Partly allowed

The Regional Manager v. Smt. Kalavathi

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2020MFA/8885/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the insurance company's appeal in part, modifying the compensation awarded for a road traffic accident involving a deceased bus driver. The Court held that a split multiplier applies given the deceased's age and near retirement, reducing the total compensation from Rs. 32.11 lakh to Rs. 21.77 lakh.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part; compensation is modified and reduced to Rs. 21,77,936 with interest.

The Regional Manager Vs Smt. Kalavathi — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

M.F.A.No.8885/2017 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

THE REGIONAL MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, GOLDEN HEIGHTS, 4^TH FLOOR, NO.1/2, 59^TH C CROSS, 4^TH M BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010 ...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

1 . SMT.KALAVATHI W/O LATE K.VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶13

2 . SRI K.V.SRINATH S/O LATE K.VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶14

3 . SMT.MANJULA W/O SIVARAM D/O LATE K.VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶15

4 . SMT.MADAVI W/O V.MOHAN

¶16

¶17

D/O LATE K.VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

¶18

5 . SMT.MUNILAKSHMI W/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS.

¶19

ALL ARE R/AT PALASANDRA LAYOUT, KOLAR CITY-563101

¶20

6 . SRI ABDUL SAMAD S/O ELIYAZ AHAMMED, R/AT SAMJ MIL, MINI IBRAHIM ROAD, ROBERTSON PET, KGF, KOLAR-563101 …RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI G.M.SRINIVASA REDDY, ADV. FOR R-1 TO R-5; SRI V.JANARDHAN, ADV. FOR R-6.)

¶22

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.126/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT & II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.32,11,868/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the

¶26

judgment and award dated 27.09.2017 passed in MVC

¶27

No.126/2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

¶28

and II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar (‘Tribunal’ for

¶29

short).

¶30

- 3 -

¶31

The claimants - legal representatives of the

¶32

deceased – K. Venkataswamy instituted petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of K. Venkataswamy in the road traffic accident that occurred on 03.03.2015.

¶33

It was averred in the claim petition that on 03.03.2015 while the deceased was working as a driver in KSRTC, Kolar Depot, has halted the bus at Bethamangala (scheduled to night halt), at about 5.20 a.m., while he was walking on the left side of the road in front of Canara Bank, Bethamangala, the driver of the mini tempo bearing registration No.KA-08-8270 (offending vehicle) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner has collided against the deceased – K. Venkataswamy from his back side. Due to the said impact, he has sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. The eye-witness by name Sajiv G., P.C.No.144 and H.C.No.888 of

¶34

¶35

Bethamangala Police Station informed the same to the Police Station at 6.30 a.m. on 03.03.2015.

¶36

It was contended that the deceased was working as a driver in KSRTC and drawing salary of Rs.43,463.39 per month. The claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the dependents on the earnings of the deceased. He had good chances of getting promotion in the department. The deceased has received a gold medal from the Chief Minister of Karnataka for his services rendered as a driver. He has received a Prashasthi Pathra for his good services and a silver medal on 15.08.1994, Prasamsa Pathra, Madhari Karmika Prashasthi Pathra and also other certificates for his best service as a driver. The deceased was aged about 57 years as on the date of his death. His untimely death has caused loss of dependency in addition to mental shock, agony and hardship to the family. On these facts and grounds, compensation was sought by the claimants.

¶37

¶38

Pursuant to the notice issued by the

¶39

Tribunal, the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle appeared through their respective counsel and filed their objections separately. The owner has denied the entire averments of the petition and also contended that offending vehicle was possessing the valid insurance policy from 20.11.2014 to 19.11.2015; the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and hence compensation, if any, has to be paid by the insurer indemnifying the owner.

¶40

The insurer has filed the objections denying

¶41

the entire petition averments but admitted the coverage of the policy from 20.11.2014 to 19.11.2015. The defence taken was that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident to drive the particular vehicle; the said vehicle was plied without

¶42

- 6 -

¶43

valid permit and fitness certificate; the claimant Nos.2 to 4 are not dependants of the deceased; the driver of

¶44

the offending vehicle alone is responsible for the accident, who is liable to pay the compensation amount.

¶45

On the basis of the pleadings, issues were

¶46

framed and answered allowing the petition in part awarding total compensation of Rs.32,11,868/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization, fastening the liability on the insurer to satisfy the award.

¶47

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment

¶48

and order, the insurer has preferred the present appeal.

¶49

Learned counsel for the insurer submitted

¶50

that the vehicle covered with policy of insurance is registered as a transport vehicle and the driver while driving a transport vehicle was required to possess an additional driving licence which was lacking. The

¶51

¶52

Tribunal failed to notice that the deceased was in the verge of retirement and he would not have earned the salary subsequent to his superannuation. Hence, taking uniform multiplicand for the purpose of adjudication of compensation is erroneous.

¶53

Learned counsel for the claimants supporting the impugned judgment and award submitted that an additional driving licence to drive a transport vehicle is not mandatory when the driver had valid and effective driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan V/s. Oriental

¶54

Insurance Company Limited reported in [2017] 14 SCC 663. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has awarded total compensation of Rs.32,11,868/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation

¶55

¶56

rightly applying the multiplier of ‘9’ and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶57

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the original records.

¶58

As regards the licence possessed by the driver to drive the light motor vehicle not being in dispute, possessing an additional driving licence to drive the transport vehicle being held to be not mandatory by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan, supra, the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurer does not merit acceptance, accordingly stands rejected.

¶59

It is evident that the deceased was aged about 57 years at the time of the accident and was working as a driver with KSRTC. Admittedly, he was in the verge of retirement. Hence, split multiplier requires to be applied for the purpose of adjudication of

¶60

¶61

compensation, deducting 1/3^rd of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The deceased was drawing salary of Rs.43,463.39 per month. After deducting income tax of Rs.6,000/-, the monthly income would work out to Rs.37,463/-. Adding 15% towards the future prospects for the salary of Rs.37,463/-, the loss of dependency has to be considered with the full salary of Rs.43,082/- (37,463 + 15% of 37,463) for three years, which works out to Rs.10,33,968/- (43,082 x 12 x 3 x 2/3). 50% of Rs.43,082/- has to be considered for 6 years, which would work to Rs.10,33,968/- (21,541 x 12 x 6 x 2/3) Thus, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.20,67,936/- (10,33,968 + 10,33,968).

¶62

In terms of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex

¶63

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 and New India Assurance Company Limited v/s.

¶64

10 -

¶65

Somwati and Others reported in 2020 SCC ONLINE

¶66

SC 720, the claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium; Rs.40,000/towards loss of filial consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶67

For the reasons aforesaid, the total

¶68

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed as under:

¶69

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount[in Rs.]
1.	Loss ofdependency	20,67,936/-
2.	Loss of Spousal Consortium	40,000/-
3.	Loss of Filial Consortium	40,000/-
3.	Loss of Estate	15,000/-
4.	Towards transportation expenses	15,000/-
	Total	21,77,936/-

¶70

Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.21,77,936/- with interest at the

¶71

11 -

¶72

rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition

¶73

till the date of realization.

¶74

Hence, the following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶77

ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and reduced to Rs.21,77,936/(Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Six only) as against Rs.32,11,868/which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶78

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

¶79

iv) The insurance company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date

¶80