Partly allowed

The National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rathna

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2021MFA/4480/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Insurance Company appealed against a Motor Vehicles Award granting compensation for the death of a bachelor. The court rejected the claim to use the mother's age for the multiplier, relying on Supreme Court precedent. However, the court reduced the statutory interest rate from 8% to 6% per annum due to lack of special reasons. The appeal was partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed on interest rate; the award of compensation upheld but interest reduced from 8% to 6% per annum.

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Rathna — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4480 OF 2015 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NITHYANANDA BUILDING MOODIBIDRI BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AT REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI: SRISHAILA S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

RATHNA W/O RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O KUDRU HOUSE

¶13

MANJU NIVASA, KASHIPATNA VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK

¶14

D.K.DISTRICT – 574 214

¶15

RAJENDRA KUMAR

¶16

S/O JARAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.3/145A

¶17

BARKE HUSE, ALIYUR POST

¶18

¶19

VALPADY VILLAGE

¶20

MANGALURU TALUK – 575 001.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

(R1 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED R2 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 24/4/2018)

¶23

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27/2/2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.861/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, KARKALA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS 6,98,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

¶24

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

J UD G M E N T

¶26

The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 27.02.2015 passed in MVC No.861 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Karkala (for short ‘the Tribunal), awarding compensation of Rs.6,98,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum in favour of the claimant.

¶27

Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.1claimant herein has filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the death of his son Mahesh due to the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that had

¶28

¶29

occurred on 13.10.2013 at about 12.30 p.m. near Howdal cross of Moodukonaje village, Mangaluru Taluk.

¶30

It is the contention of the claimant that deceased

¶31

Mahesh was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-21-R-3377 from Moodbidri towards Shirthady and when he reached near Howdal cross of Moodukonaje Village, the Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-19-D-1985 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the motor cycle in question, as a result of which, the rider of the motor cycle had fallen and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to A.J. Hospital at Mangaluru, but in spite of treatment, the injured succumbed to the injuries. It is contended that the deceased was working as Mechanic and was earning Rs.20,000/per month. The claimant is his mother and is entitled to claim compensation.

¶32

The claimant in support of her contention has examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 27. The respondents got examined RWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.R1 in support of their contention. The Tribunal taking into

¶33

¶34

consideration all the materials placed on record, awarded compensation of Rs.6,98,000/- along with interest at 8% per annum. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, respondent No.2 - Insurance Company before the Tribunal has preferred this appeal.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent No.1 is served and unrepresented.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the deceased was a bachelor, the age of his mother should have been considered by the Tribunal to determine the compensation. He further contended that the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Reasonable interest at the rate of 6% per annum should have been granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, on these grounds, he prays for modification of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶37

¶38

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant in light of the material including Trial Court records. The following points arise for consideration:

¶39

“(i) Whether the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier ‘17’ by taking the age of the deceased instead of adopting the multiplier ‘13’ by taking the age of the deceased mother?

¶40

(ii) Whether the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 8% is liable to be interfered with?”

¶41

My answer to point No.(i) is ‘Negative’ and point No.(ii) is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following reasons:

¶42

Point No.(i):- Even though, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the age of the mother should have been taken to determine the compensation since the deceased was a bachelor, it does not hold any water in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and

¶43

¶44

Others [(2017) 16 SCC 680], wherein relying on the principle laid down in Sarla Verma and Others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another [(2009) 6 SCC 121] it is held that the age of the deceased, though he is a bachelor, should be considered for determining the compensation.

¶45

In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the multiplier ‘13’ has to be applied by taking the age of the mother to determine the compensation has to be rejected out rightly. Accordingly, it is rejected. Hence, Point No.(i) is answered in ‘Negative’.

¶46

Point No.2:- The next contention of the learned

¶47

counsel is that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% needs to be reduced to 6% per annum. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 8%. However, no special reasons are assigned by the Tribunal for awarding the rate of interest at 8%. I deem it necessary to reduce the rate of interest to 6%. Hence, I answer point No.2 in ‘Affirmative’.

¶48

¶49

11. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The appeal is partly allowed.

¶52

The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is upheld. However, it is held that the claimant is entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum instead of 8% awarded by the Tribunal.

¶53

The amount in deposit, if any, before this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

*bgn/-

The National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rathna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rathna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C Shankar Reddy Vs Mrs Bhavana Chopra

Alfan Vs State of Karnataka

K S Geetha Vs Sathisha

Nagu S/O Babu Pandre Vs the State of Karnataka

Neelamma W/O Late Paranand Kawalgi Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijayakumar S/O Nagaraj Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.