The Karnataka High Court dismissed an insurance company's appeal challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of compensation for death due to a road traffic accident. The court upheld the quantum and multiplier adopted by the tribunal.
The appeal was dismissed; amount deposited, if any, to be transmitted to the Tribunal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. DESAI
MFA NO. 8768/2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT HAVING ITS R.O. AT UNIT NO.04 6TH FLOOR, GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX 59TH ‘C’ CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB 4TH ‘M’ BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 010 BY ITS MANAGER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . N BHAGYA
NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
W/O H M NANJUNDASWAMY
2 . H M NANJUNDASWAMY
NOW AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O MADAIAH
BOTH RESIDING AT DOOR NO 238/C
2
21ST CROSS, 2ND STAGE
VIJAYANAGARA, MYSURU – 570 001
3 . MAHADESHA
NOW AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O LATE NANJUNDASWAMY R/A NO 1050, 11TH CROSS, BOGADI VILLAGE MYSURU TALUK – 570 001
4 . R. D. RAJUKARTHIKEYAN MAJOR
S/O LATE RAJU
R/A NO. 7/11, SRI MAHADESHWARA COLLEGE ROAD KOLLEGAL TOWN, KOLLEGALA – 571 440 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MURTHY D.L, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, R3- V/O DT.10.11.2021 NOTICE D/W, R4- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.96/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT AT MYSURU. THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED FOR COMPENSATION OF RS 8,92,312/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company (for short, 'Insurance Company') against the judgment and award dated 17.07.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Additional Court of Small Causes, Mysuru (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in MVC No.96/2014, whereby the Tribunal has awarded of compensation of Rs.8,92,312/together with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant was the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal.
4
Road. When they reached near T. Narasipura 22 KM Stone, a bus bearing Registration No. KA.10.5055 came from T. Narasipura towards Mysuru, came in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life, dashed to the said motor cycle. As a result, the pillion rider fell down from the motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was aged 21 years and he was hale and healthy as on the date of the alleged accident. Hence, the parents of the deceased have filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.44,70,000/-, as they were depending upon the income of the deceased.
driver, owner and Insurer of the offending bus were arrayed as Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively. The Respondent No.2 remained ex-parte and the claim petition against Respondent No.1 was dismissed, and Respondent No.3-Insurance Company
has appeared through its counsel and filed its written statement. It is admitted that the said offending bus was duly insured by Respondent No.2-owner with Respondent No.3Insurance Company. But, the respondent No.3-Insurance
5
Company took a contention that the accident took place due to rash and negligent riding of the said motor cycle and therefore, there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. So it is contended by respondent No.3-Insurance Company that, the liability of the Insurance Company is subject to the proof of compliance of the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:-
6
iii) What order or relief?
evidence produced before it, the Tribunal while considering the above issues, has awarded compensation of Rs.8,92,312/under the following heads:-
| Sl.No. | Particulars | Amount (Rs.) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Loss of dependency |
8,22,312.00 |
| 2 | Loss of love and affection |
20,000.00 |
| 3 | Loss to estate |
25,000.00 |
| 4 | Funeral Expenses |
25,000.00 |
| Total |
8,92,312.00 |
awarded by the Tribunal under different heads, the Insurer of
7
the offending bus, has filed this appeal on the following grounds:-
8
awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side and hence the same may be modified by awarding appropriate compensation and prayed to allow the appeal by modifying the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
9
both sides and on perusal of the records, the following points would arise for my consideration in this appeal:-
Traffic Accident on 06.09.2013 involving the bus in question bearing No.KA.10.5055, is not disputed by the appellantInsurance Company. On the other hand, the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and also the post-mortem report and charge sheet, has come to the conclusion that the accident is wholly due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus and accordingly, answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
10
11
'18' has calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.8,22,312/(Rs.3,807X12X18).
12
50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made". In the instant case, though it is stated by PW.1 in her evidence that the deceased was working in a private company and drawing salary of Rs.9,000/-, but, based on the Salary Certificate produced, which show that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.9,000/- p.m., the Tribunal has assessed his gross salary at Rs.5,077/- based on Ex.P10- Salary Certificate and it is too meager considering the year of accident as 2013. Of course, the claimants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. But, keeping in mind the settled principles of law for assessing the income of the deceased, the future prospects calculated by the Tribunal needs no interference.
and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 . Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer that, while
13
applying the multiplier, the age of the younger parent has to be taken into consideration, does not hold good, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent decisions. Since except these two grounds no other grounds are urged, in my considered view, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
ii) If any amount is deposited before this Court in respect of this case, the same shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for the purpose of disbursement in accordance with the order of apportionment made by the Tribunal, in the impugned judgment and award.
Sd/JUDGE
KGR*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the future prospects considered by the Tribunal for calculating loss of dependency are in accordance with law.
Whether the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is just and proper.
Whether the impugned judgment is contrary to the evidence on record.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and othersRelied on¶75
Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others (2013 ACJ 1403)
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and othersRelied on¶78
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680 · Who else cites this
Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport CorporationRelied on¶81
Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited
N Bhagya
H M Nanjundaswamy
Mahadesha
R. D. Rajukarthikeyan Major
P.N. Desai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
