Allowed

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Anwar S/O Ismailsab Shaikhsanadi

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2021MFA/101968/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataaka High Court allowed consecutive miscellaneous first appeals filed by an insurance company. It modified the compensation awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, reducing the total due to each claimant from Rs. 30,05,144/- to Rs. 18,86,600/- after rejecting unauthenticated income evidence and applying the standard Lok Adalat chart.

What did the court decide?

Impugned awards modified; compensation reduced to Rs. 18,86,600/- per claimant; insurance company directed to deposit balance within eight weeks.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Anwar S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101968 OF 2020 (MV) AND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101967 OF 2020

¶8

MFA No.101968 OF 2020

¶9

Between:

¶10

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1^st Floor, Jaju Arcade Near Damini Hotel Tarabai Park, Kohlapur Maharashtra 416 003 Through its Branch Manager Branch Office, Opp. Hotel Sanman, College Road, Belagavi By Authorised Signatory

¶11

…Appellant

¶12

(by Shri Ravindra R. Mane, Advocate)

¶13

And:

¶14

Anwar S/o Ismailsab Sahikhsanadi Age 47 years Occ: Coolie

¶15

¶16

R/o H NO.391, Muslimwada Boma North Goa Goa 403 107

¶17

Rehanabahu W/o Anwar Shaikhsanadi Age 42 years Occ: Household work R/o H NO.391, Muslimwada Boma North Goa Goa 403 107

¶18

Amarsinh Shiajirao Bagal Age 47 Occ: Business R/o: A/P Yalgud, Taluk: Hatakanagale District: Kolhapur Maharashtra Stte (Owner of Scor RF HWK Vehicle bearing Reg. No.MH-09/BX-0506) …Respondents

¶19

(by Shri Hanamant R. Latur, Advocate)

¶20

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 03.01.2020 passed in MVC No.1216 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khanapur awarding compensation of Rs.30,05,144/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶21

MFA No.101967 OF 2020

¶22

Between:

¶23

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1^st Floor, Jaju Arcade Near Damini Hotel Tarabai Park, Kohlapur

¶24

¶25

Maharashtra 416 003 Through its Branch Manager Branch Office Opp. Hotel Sanman, College Road Belagavi By Authorised Signatory

¶26

…Appellant

¶27

(by Shri Ravindra R. Mane, Advocate)

¶28

And:

¶29

Baburam S/o Bhavani Soni Age 47 years Occ: Coolie R/o M. Bada Marul Boma Marcela Ponda North Goa - 403 107

¶30

Smt. Anupama W/o Baburam Soni Age 40 years Occ: Household work R/o M. Bada Marul Boma Marcela Ponda North Goa - 403 107

¶31

Amarsinh Shiajirao Bagal Age 47 Occ: Business R/o: A/P Yalgud, Taluk: Hatakanagale District: Kolhapur Maharashtra Stte (Owner of Scor RF HWK Vehicle bearing Reg. No.MH-09/BX-0506)

¶32

…Respondents

¶33

(by Shri Hanamant R. Latur, Advocate)

¶34

¶35

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 03.01.2020 passed in MVC No.1215 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khanapur awarding compensation of Rs.30,05,144/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶36

These MFAs coming on for hearing, this day, SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, delivered the following:

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

These two appeals are disposed of by this common judgment as they arise from common judgment and award passed in two claim petitions in MVC No.1216 and 1215 of 2018 on the file of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khanapur.

¶39

The appellant in these two appeals is the Insurance Company and the challenge is only with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶40

As a result of the road traffic accident that took place on 12^th May, 2018 at about 7.30 pm near Kusumalli village on Chorla-Belagavi Road, two persons viz. Mohammed Gous and Deepanshu, both aged 19 years, breathed their last at the spot. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent manner of

¶41

¶42

driving by the driver of a vehicle Scorpio RF HWK with registration No.MH-09/BX-0506.

¶43

The claimants are the respective parents of Mohammed

¶44

Ghouse and Deepanshu. In the claim petition that they laid before the Tribunal, they stated that deceased were aged 19 years and they were working as Mechanics on a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- They produced salary certificates of the deceased as per Exhibits P12 and P17 in proof of their income. The Tribunal relied upon those two documents for calculating the amount to be awarded towards loss of dependency. Holding that the income of each of the deceased was Rs.20,000/- per month, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.28,80,144/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards love and affection; Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses to grant total compensation of Rs.30,05,144/-. The Tribunal did not grant any amount towards loss of consortium.

¶45

¶46

We have heard Shri R.R. Mane, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Shri Hanamanth R. Lathur learned counsel for the respondent/claimants in both the appeals. It is the argument of Shri R.R. Mane that the claimants in both the cases failed to prove the occupation of the deceased. The Tribunal has erred in relying upon Exhibit P12 and P17 to hold the income of both the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month. It is his argument that this amount has to be reduced. According to him, if the Lok Adalat chart is applied, the maximum amount that can be taken into consideration to award compensation under loss of dependency is Rs.11,750/- per month. He submits that on the other heads also, the amount needs to be reduced. Therefore, he argued for reducing quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶47

He further argued that the Tribunal has deducted one-

¶48

third towards personal expenses of the deceased. Since the deceased were bachelors, 50% could have been deducted. Thus considered, there will be reduction in the compensation to be awarded. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeals by

¶49

¶50

reducing the total compensation. However, he does not dispute that the parents of both the deceased are entitled to an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards consortium and filial love, which the Tribunal has denied.

¶51

Shri Hanamant R. Latur, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 argued for sustaining the award passed by the Tribunal. In his opinion, Exhibits P12 and P17 prove that the deceased were working as Mechanics on a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. He submits that there are no merits in the appeals and hence both the appeals deserved to be dismissed.

¶52

We have perused the impugned award and also the evidence available on record. We are of the opinion that the claimants might have produced Exhibits P12 and P17 in order to prove the income of the deceased. But it is to be stated that these two documents do not prove that the deceased were working as mechanics. They are issued by private companies. The contents should have been proved by examining the author of the documents. Therefore, it is not possible to rely upon Exhibits P12 and P17. In the absence of authenticated

¶53

¶54

documents in proof of income of the deceased, we have to go by the Lok Adalat chart according to which the notional income in relation to the accidents of the year 2008, is to be taken as Rs.11,750/- per month. To the said income, another 40% is to be added towards future prospects. The appropriate multiplier is 18. Since both the deceased were bachelors, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus considered, the amount to be granted towards loss of dependency works out to Rs.17,76,600/- [(Rs.11,750 + 40%) x 12 x 18 x ½]. According to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NANU RAM @ CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, the parents are entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium and another amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.18,86,600/-. This is the amount to be awarded to the claimants in each case towards total compensation in relation to the death of sons of the claimants. The Tribunal has granted interest at 9% per annum and the same is retained.

¶55

¶56

From the above discussion, we come to the conclusion

¶57

that these two appeals deserve to be allowed. Amounts awarded

¶58

need to be modified. Hence, we pass the following:

¶59

O R D E R

¶60

Appeals are allowed;

¶61

Impugned awards are modified. It is held that in each claim petition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.18,86,600/as against Rs.30,05,144/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶62