Partly allowed

The Manager v. Smt Kalavathi

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2021MFA/3288/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two miscellaneous first appeals, the High Court of Karnataka addressed liability and quantum in a motor accident claim. Ruling that the insurer must pay and can recover from the owner without producing a permit, the court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 17,33,200 with interest at 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company ordered to pay enhanced compensation of Rs. 17,33,200 with 6% annual interest; insurer entitled to recover from owner after payment.

The Manager Vs Smt Kalavathi — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3288 OF 2015 (MV) C/w

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7475 OF 2015

¶8

In MFA No.3288/2015

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

The Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited EP RIICO Industrial Area Sitapur, Jaipur Rajasthan-302 022.

¶11

Now represented by The Manager M/s Shriram General Insurance Company Limited No.5/4, 3^rd Floor, S V Arcade Bilakahalli Main Road Off B G Road, IIM Post Bengaluru-560 076.

¶12

...Appellant

¶13

(By Shri H N Keshava Prashanth, Advocate)

¶14

AND

¶15

Smt. Kalavathi

¶16

¶17

W/o late Narayanappa @ Lakshminarayanappa Now aged about 46 years R/at No.30/1, I Main Thirumala Nagar Attur Layout, Yelahanka Bengaluru-560 064.

¶18

Mr. Anil Kumar S/o Venkatesh K M No.15/11, Abbigere Road Right Side, 15^th Main Road K G Halli Bengaluru-560 015.

¶19

…Respondents (By Shri M R Kumar Swamy, Advocate for R1; vide Order dated 29.03.2021 Notice to R2 is held sufficient)

¶20

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 31.01.2015 passed in MVC No.5808 of 2013 on the file of the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, awarding a compensation of Rs.16,03,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶21

In MFA No.7475/2015

¶22

BETWEEN

¶23

Smt. Kalavathi W/o late Narayanappa @ Laxminarayanappa Aged about 46 years R/at NO.30/1, I Main Thirumala Nagar Attur Layout, Yelahanka Bengaluru-560 064.

¶24

… Appellant

¶25

¶26

(By Shri M R Kumara Swamy, Advocate)

¶27

AND

¶28

Mr. Anil Kumar V S/o Venkatesh K M No.15/11, Abbigere Road Right side 15^th Main Road K G Halli Bengaluru-560 015.

¶29

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited EP, RIICO Industrial Area Sit Pura, Jaipur Rajasthan-302 022. Rep. by its Regional Office Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Regional office No.5, II Floor Monarch Chamber Infantry Road, Opp. to Infantry Function Hall Bengaluru-560 001.

¶30

… Respondents

¶31

(By Shri H N Keshava Prashanth, Advocate for R2; vide order dated 04.02.2020 service of notice to R1 is held sufficient)

¶32

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 31.01.2015 passed in MVC No.5808 of 2013 on the file of the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶33

These Miscellaneous First appeals coming on for admission, this day, INDIRESH J., delivered the following:

¶34

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

These appeals are filed, challenging the judgment and award dated 31.01.2015 in MVC 5808/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’). MFA 3288 of 2015 is filed by the Insurance Company on the ground of liability and quantum; and MFA 7475 of 2015 is filed by the claimant, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶37

For the sake of convenience, the parties in these appeals are referred to with their status and rank before the Tribunal.

¶38

It is the case of the claimant that on 30.09.2013, son of the claimant was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-03-EN-1902 and when he reached near Airforce Gate on S.M.Road, a water tanker bearing registration No.KA-04-D-2676 dashed to the motor cycle and as a result of the said impact, the son of the claimant died. It is the case of the claimant that, she is a widow and the deceased son was

¶39

¶40

contributing towards the family and as such, she lost the breadearner in the family. Hence, the claimant filed MVC No.5808/2013 on the file of the Tribunal, seeking compensation.

¶41

On service of notice, respondents entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶42

On the basis of the pleadings on record, the Tribunal formulated the issues for its consideration. Claimant was examined as PW1 and examined the employer of the deceased as PW2 and got marked 13 documents as Exhibits P1 to P13. The insurance company examined its officer as RW1 and marked two documents as Exhibits R1 and R2. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and award dated 31^st January, 2015 allowed the claim petition in part and ordered that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.16,03,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶43

Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claimant has filed MFA 7475/2015 seeking

¶44

¶45

enhancement of compensation. MFA 3288/2015 is filed by the insurance company, challenging the impugned judgment and award on the ground of liability and quantum.

¶46

We have heard Sri H.N. Keshava Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company and Sri M.R. Kumaraswamy, learned counsel appearing for the claimant.

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company argued that the offending vehicle in question did not possess the valid permit as on the date of the accident and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle. He further submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and the same requires to be interfered with in this appeal.

¶48

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant argued that the award of compensation made by the Tribunal is on the lower side which requires to be enhanced. He further argued that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1 is just and proper and therefore, requested the Court to dismiss the appeal preferred by the insurance company.

¶49

¶50

In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Tribunal and perused the original records. It is not in dispute that the son of the claimant-Manikanta died in a road traffic accident on 30^th September, 2013. It is the contention of the insurance company that the offending vehicle did not possess the permit as on the date of the accident. Perusal of the record would indicate that the insurer has not furnished the permit of the vehicle in question before the Tribunal, nor before this Court. However, in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of AMRIT PAUL SINGH AND ANOTHER v. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558, the insurance company is liable to satisfy the award made in favour of the claimant and thereafter, recover from the insurer/owner of the vehicle and therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company cannot be accepted.

¶51

¶52

Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, as per records, deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident and he was a bachelor and was drawing a salary of Rs.11,000/- per month as per Exhibits P9 and P30. The testimony of PW2, employer substantiate the details of employment of the deceased. In view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the appropriate multiplier would be 18 and 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. In view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, 40% is to be added towards future prospects. Hence, loss of dependency would be Rs.16,63,200/(Rs.11,000/- + 40% x 12 x 18 x 1/2). Claimant is entitled for Rs.40,000/- under loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.17,33,200/with interest at the rate of 6% on the enhanced compensation.

¶53

¶54

The Tribunal has granted 8% per annum interest on the compensation however, same is restricted to 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation taking into consideration the prevailing bank rate of interest. In the result, we pass the following:

¶55

O R D E R

¶56

i) MFA 3288 of 2015 preferred by the Insurance Company is allowed in part. Insurer shall satisfy the award with liberty to recover the same from the owner/insured;

¶57

ii) MFA 7475 of 2015 is allowed in part. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.17,33,200/(Rupees seventeen lakh thirty three thousand two hundred only) as against Rs.16,03,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as against the interest awarded at 8% per annum by the Tribunal, from the date of the claim petition till its realisation;

¶58

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

¶59

¶60

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;

¶61