Partly allowed

The Branch Manager v. Smt Thippamma

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2021MFA/8823/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The First Additional Associate Judge allowed the insurance company's appeal in part, modifying the Tribunal's compensation award from Rs.17.11 lakhs to Rs.15.50 lakhs for loss of dependency and other claimed losses, adjusting for assessment errors and future prospects.

What did the court decide?

Compensation awarded reduced from Rs.17,11,000 to Rs.15,50,800 with interest at 6%. Judgment modified.

The Branch Manager Vs Smt Thippamma — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH 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.8823 OF 2017 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1 . THE BRANCH MANAGER

¶11

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE,

¶12

SHARADHA COMPLEX, OPPOSITE KSRTC BUS STAND, B D ROAD CHITHRADURGA

¶13

THROUGH ITS HUBBALLI REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, OPP HDMC, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580201 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER

¶14

...Appellant

¶15

(BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV.,)

¶16

AND

¶17

1 . SMT THIPPAMMA W/O GOPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS PERMANENT R/O LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577522

¶18

¶19

2 . SMT G DEEPA W/O K DINESH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O MCC B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE - 577501

¶20

3 . G DIVYA D/O GOPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS PERMANENT R/O LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577522

¶21

4 . GOPALA REDDY S/O HANUMANTH REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O KYADIGERE VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577522

¶22

5 . SRI M V CHALAPATHI RAO S/O KALIDAS MAJOR IN AGE, R/O PLOT NO 127, RAGHAV KALYAN COLONY, VIDYA NAGARA BELLARY TOWN - 583104

¶23

Respondents

¶24

(R-1, R-3 AND R-5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.72/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & 4TH MACT, CHITRADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.17,11,000/WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) is filed by the Appellant-Insurance company challenging the Judgment and award dated 15.12.2016 passed in MVC No.72/2016 by the First Senior Civil Judge and Fourth, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Chitradurga.

¶30

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 24.12.2015 at about 8.30. p.m. Anantha Reddy and his friend were proceeding on a motor cycle from Challakere to Kalshimipura Village, at that time, the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and went to the extreme left side of the road and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, Anantha Reddy sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

¶31

The legal representatives of the deceased Anantha Reddy thereupon filed a petition under Section 166

¶32

¶33

of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of accident and was working as a sales man and Field Assistant in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., Challakere, and also doing agricultural work. They further pleaded that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as sales man and Rs.5,00,000/- per annum from agricultural work. It was further pleaded that the accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/- along with interest.

¶34

On service of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed exparte. The respondent No.2 filed the written statement denying the entire plaint averments. It was pleaded that the driver of the offending lorry was not possessing with valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. It was also pleaded that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry but it was due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle who rode the same in zigzag manner with

¶35

¶36

high speed. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive.

¶37

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and one witness as P.W.2 and marked documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. The respondents did not lead any evidence nor marked any documents.

¶38

The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. It was further held, that as a result of 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.17,11,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realiazation.

¶39

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant- insurance

¶41

company submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in adding 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects for awarding compensation under head loss of dependency which is contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and other. He further submitted that the compensation amount awarded under other conventional heads are on the higher side. Hence seeks for reducing the compensation amount.

¶42

The respondents-claimants though served with notice have remained absent.

¶43

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶44

Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. The accident is of the year 2015. It is also not in dispute that

¶45

¶46

deceased at the time of accident was aged about 24 years. The Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m. Therefore, if notional income of the deceased is assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, notional income comes to Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶47

In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’

¶48

AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40 % of the amount has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.12,600/-. Since, the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the amount has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.6,300/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 24 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘18’ has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to (Rs.6,300 x 12 x 18) i.e., Rs.13,60,800/- on account of loss of dependency.

¶49

¶50

In view of laid down by the Supreme Court in

¶51

‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM

¶52

& 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 love and affection. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.1,60,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶53

Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.15,50,800/as against Rs.17,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is needless to state that the aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount of compensation. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶54

¶55

The Statutory amount in deposit in this appeal to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants in accordance with law. Excess deposit if any made by the insurance company to be refunded to the insurance company.

¶56

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

The Branch Manager v. Smt Thippamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Smt Thippamma

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

Executive Engineer Vs Siddegowda

Kavya Vs K Nagaraja

M/S Bel Employees House Building Co-Operative Vs the Income Tax Officer

Executive Engineer P.W.D Vs Hanumanthegowda

Smt. Sunitha Vs Sri Dr Pradeep Kumar Hiremat

Smt. Sunitha Vs Sri. B. S. Naveena