Partly allowed

Smt. Rajeshwari v. the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2021MFA/7669/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed the insurance company's appeal partly and dismissed the claimants' appeal seeking enhancement. The Court modified the compensation quantum from Rs.16,96,500 to Rs.16,89,400 based on notional income assessments and statutory multipliers, adjusting the interest rate to 6%.

What did the court decide?

Compensation awarded by the Tribunal was modified to Rs.16,89,400 with interest at 6% per annum; the insurance company directed to deposit the amount.

Smt. Rajeshwari Vs the New India Assurance Company… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7669 OF 2015 (MV)

¶8

C/w MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5529 OF 2015

¶9

In MFA No.7669/2015

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

Smt. Rajeshwari W/o late Amarnath Reddy Aged about 24 years

¶12

Master Sai Ranjith S/o late Amarnath Reddy Aged about 5 years Since the appellant No.2 is Minor represented by his Mother i.e., the 1^st appellant Herein as natural guardian.

¶13

Both are R/at No.8/2 Bhagyanilaya Gangamma Temple Street K R Puram Bengaluru-560 036.

¶14

Sri P Mogili Reddy

¶15

¶16

S/o late Muniswamy Reddy Aged about 62 years

¶17

Smt. P Jayamma W/o Mogili Reddy Aged 54 years

¶18

Both are R/at Mogili Mittar Bangarupalyam Mandalam Chittor District Andharapradesh State

¶19

...Appellants

¶20

(By Shri Showri H R, Advocate)

¶21

AND

¶22

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., T P Hub, II Floor Mahalakshmi Chambers M G Road Bangalore-560 001.

¶23

Sri Keshava Singh Chouhan S/o Narayana Singh VIII Raithal, Jaipur Udaipur Rajastan-303 807.

¶24

…Respondents

¶25

(By Shri C R Ravishankar, Advocate for R1; notice 2 is dispensed with vide order dated 29.01.2021)

¶26

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 20.02.2015 passed in MVC No.6457 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Court of Small Causes, MACT, Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

In MFA No.5529/2015

BETWEEN

The New India Assurance Co, Ltd., Motor Third Party Claims Hub Mahalakshmi Chambers No.9, II Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Represented by its Manager.

¶31

...Appellant

¶32

(By Shri Ravishankar C R, Advocate)

¶33

AND

¶34

Smt. P Rajeshwari Aged about 24 years W/o late Amarnath Reddy

¶35

Master Sai Ranjith Aged about 5 years S/o late Amarnath Reddy Since minor represented by Mother, 1^st Respondent.

¶36

Both are R/at No.8/2 Bhagya Nilaya Gangamma Temple Street K R Puram Bangalore-560 036.

¶37

Sri P Mogili Reddy Aged about 62 years W/o late Muniswamy Reddy

¶38

Smt. P Jayamma Aged about 54 years W/o Sri P Mogili Reddy

¶39

¶40

Both are R/at Mogili Mittar Bangarupalyam Mandalam Chittoor District Andhra Pradesh.

¶41

Sri Keshav Singh Chouhan S/o Sri Narayana Singh VIII Raithal Jaipur Udaipur Rajasthan-303 807.

¶42

…Respondents

¶43

(Notice to R1 & R5 dispensed with R3 & 4 served; R2 minor represented by R1)

¶44

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 20.02.2015 passed in MVC No.6457 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Court of Small Causes, MACT, Bengaluru, awarding compensation of Rs.16,96,500/with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶45

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

¶46

J U D G M E N T

¶47

These appeals are filed against the judgment and award dated 20^th February, 2015 passed in MVC No.6457 of 2013 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal’). MFA No.7669 of 2015 is filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation. MFA No.5529 of 2015 is

¶48

¶49

filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the liability and quantum.

¶50

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

¶51

It is the case of the claimants that on 08^th November, 2012, husband of the claimant No.1-Amarnath Reddy, was repairing the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-55/K-6117 on the left side of the road on Krishnagiri-Salem National Highway and at that time, driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.RJ14/GC-5527 hit the said Amarnath Reddy and as a result of the said accident, Amarnath Reddy succumbs to injuries. It is the case of the claimants that the claimants were depending upon the income of the deceased and due to untimely death of the bread-earner in the family, the claimants have filed MVC No.6547 of 2013 on the file of the Tribunal. On service of notice, respondent No.1 entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No.2 was served and placed ex-parte. On the basis of the pleadings on record, Tribunal formulated issues for its consideration. Claimant No.1 was examined as PW1 and got

¶52

¶53

marked the documents as Exhibits P1 to P11. No evidence on the part of the respondent. The Tribunal after considering the material on record, by its judgment and award dated 20^th February, 2015 , allowed the claim petition in part and ordered that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.16,96,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being not satisfied with the award of compensation made by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred appeal for enhancement of compensation; and the Insurance Company is before this Court questioning liability as well as quantum.

¶54

We have heard Sri Shouri H.R., learned counsel appearing for the claimants and Sri C.R. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

¶55

Sri C.R. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the negligence on the part of the deceased while answering issue No.1. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lesser side, which requires to be interfered with in this appeal.

¶56

¶57

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal after considering the material on record, rightly fastened the liability on the respondents and therefore, the same does not require any interference. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, he argued that the income of the deceased was wrongly assessed by the Tribunal and therefore, he seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶58

We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. It is not in dispute that the husband of the claimant died in the road traffic accident on 08^th November, 2012. On careful examination of the evidence of PW1 and the police records marked before the Tribunal at Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P6, inter alia, no evidence was adduced by the respondentInsurance Company, challenging the liability before the Tribunal and as such, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company on issue No.1 cannot be accepted.

¶59

Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at

¶60

¶61

Rs.7,000/- per month. Undisputably, no documentary evidence was produced by the claimants before the Tribunal to prove the income of the deceased and therefore, in order to ascertain the notional income of the deceased in the absence of documentary evidence, we are of the considered view that the notional income of the deceased could be taken on par with the income shown in the Lok Adalat chart. Accident is of the year 2012 and therefore, the notional income for the accident of the relevant year is Rs.7,000/- per month. Age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 30 years and as per 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 17. There are four dependents and therefore the appropriate deduction would be one-fourth towards the personal expenses of the deceased. In terms 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, the loss of dependency would be Rs.14,99,400/- (Rs.7,000/- x 40%

¶62

¶63

x 12 x 17 x ¾). There are four dependents, hence, loss of consortium would be Rs.1,60,000/(Rs.40,000/x 4). Rs.15,000/- each is awarded towards loss of estate and towards funeral expenses. Accordingly, the following:

¶64

O R D E R

¶65

i) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7669 of 2015 stands dismissed;

¶66

ii) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.5529 of 2015 is allowed in part;

¶67

iii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified by awarding compensation of Rs.16,89,400/- (Rupees sixteen lakh eighty nine thousand four hundred only) as against Rs.16,96,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realisation;

¶68

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

¶69

¶70

v) 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;

¶71

vi) The modified compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal;

¶72

vii) Draw modified award accordingly;

¶73

viii) Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

lnn

Smt. Rajeshwari v. the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajeshwari v. the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

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 Bengaluru Metropolitan Vs M/S Comfort Homes Inn

Safiya M Vs Mulabai

Smt. Vasanthi N Shetty Vs Sri. Karunakara

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Smt. P. Rajeshwari

Sri Ramesha Vs Sri O Srikanth Reddy

Kishore Vs Smt.Srikala