Partly allowed

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited v. Priya @ Priya Krishnan

Karnataka HC18 Aug 2021MFA/3540/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka modified the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a motor vehicle accident claim. The court recalculated the loss of dependency based on the deceased's earnings and adjusted the total award while dismissing the appellant's claim for further reduction.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed to the extent the compensation of Rs. 37,24,800/- instead of Rs. 37,85,000/-, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing.

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Priya… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

M.F.A. NO.3540 OF 2016 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001 REP BY ITS MANAGER. ... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

PRIYA @ PRIYA KRISHNAN,

¶14

W/O RAJESH K @ RAJESH KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶15

KRISHNAN N,

¶16

S/O LATE NAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.

¶17

YESHODA KRISHNAN, W/O KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶18

¶19

ALL ARE R/AT NO.150, KUNNATHVEEDU LAKKIDI PERUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KERALA STATE - 679301.

¶20

NANJUNDAPPA B G, MAJOR, S/O GOPALAIAH B R, SUPER TAILOR , TAMAKA (V & P) KOLAR - 563101, (OWNER OF TEMPO BEARING REG NO.KA -19/B-4967). ... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI R CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3, SRI B.BASAVARAJU FOR R4)

¶22

¶23

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1595/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & 27TH ACMM, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.37,85,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL COMPLETE REALIZATION.

¶24

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is filed against the judgment dated 28.1.2016 in MVC No.1595/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-11) and I Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVII ACMM (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).

¶27

¶28

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 16.11.2012, when Rajesh K @ Rajesh Krishnan s/o Krishnan N was riding his motorcycle on Old Madras Road, near T C Palya Junction, T C Palya, Bangalore, at that time, the driver of tempo driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle of Rajesh. As a result of the same, the said Rajesh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed as a result of injuries suffered by him in the accident.

¶29

The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and was working as a Multi Tasking Staff (Peon) in Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry and earning a sum of Rs.19,293/- p.m. and he was having 25 years of service. It was further pleaded that the accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the tempo by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.55,00,000/- along with interest.

¶30

¶31

The respondent No.1 filed the written statement and denied the contents of the claim petition contending that the petition is not maintainable. It was pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. It was pleaded that the respondent No.1 has not violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It was pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving license to drive the vehicle and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶32

The Insurance Company filed written statement,

¶33

in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was also pleaded that liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was pleaded that the insurance policy was issued in respect of the goods vehicle only. It was pleaded that as on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence. It was pleaded that the owner of the offending vehicle has not informed to the 2nd respondent about the

¶34

¶35

accident and also not furnished the information in this regard. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶36

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.3 examined herself as PW1, K Harish as PW2 and K Sridhara Babu as PW3 and exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P23. The 2nd respondent examined Sri K S Ravindra as RW1 and Sri M Narashimha Reddy as RW2 and Exs.R1 to R7 were marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

¶37

The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tempo by its driver. It was further held that as a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.37,85,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶38

¶39

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal without deducting the income tax and the professional tax payable by the deceased has assessed the income at Rs.20,000/- which is on the higher side. He further submitted that the compensation awarded on the conventional heads is on the higher side and the same may be reduced.

¶40

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference.

¶41

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶42

The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶43

The claimants to substantiate their claim that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- p.m. have produced pay certificate of the deceased at Ex.P14. A

¶44

¶45

perusal of the same indicates that the deceased was working as a Multi Tasking Staff in the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Cochin. Ex.P14 discloses that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.20,060/- . From the aforesaid amount of Rs.200/- has to be deducted towards Professional Tax. No amount can be deducted towards Income tax as the deceased's income does not fall within the taxable bracket for the concerned assessment year. Moreover, Ex.P14. also does not disclose any deductions towards Income tax. Therefore, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.19,860/- per month.

¶46

In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘ NATIONAL INSURANCE

¶47

COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’

¶48

AIR 2017 SC 5157, 50% of the amount has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.29,790/-. Since, the number of dependents are three, therefore, 1/3rd of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.19,860/- Taking into account the

¶49

¶50

age of the deceased who was 35 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘15’ has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to (Rs.19,860x 12 x15) i.e., Rs.35,74,800/- on account of loss of dependency.

¶51

In view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & ORS.’ (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in ‘UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.’ IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 DECIDED ON 30.06.2020 each of the claimant’s are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.1,20,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶52

Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.37,24,800/- interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of

¶53

¶54

the amount of compensation as against Rs.37,85,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶55

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment dated 28.01.2016 in MVC No.1595/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-11) and I Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVII ACMM is modified.

¶56

The amount in deposit to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with law.

¶57

The excess amount, if any, to be refunded to the Insurance Company.

¶58

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

BKM

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited v. Priya @ Priya Krishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited v. Priya @ Priya Krishnan

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

The High Court of Karnataka Vs Shri K Sippegowda

Sri K Sippegowda Vs the High Court of Karnataka

Abhishek Gowda K S Vs M/S Samruddhi Enterprises

Branch Manager Vs Smt Masthamma

M/S Water Angels Vs Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Bharath Raj.R Vs Chandulal Patel