Dismissed

Branch Manager v. Hemachandra Gowda S/O Late Narayana Gowda

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2022MFA/10819/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a first appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 4,12,500/- in a vehicle accident death case. The Insurance Company challenged the multiplier calculation and the non-inclusion of the second vehicle. The High Court found the Tribunal's assessment legally correct and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Judgment and award dated 25.06.2011 confirmed.

Branch Manager Vs Hemachandra Gowda S/O Late… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

M.F.A.NO.10819/2011(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX MAIN ROAD, MUDABIDRI NOW REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. REGINOAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX 144 M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE 1

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

HEMACHANDRA GOWDA S/O LATE NARAYANA GOWDA NOW AGED ABOUT 59 YEARSS.

¶13

SMT KAMALA W/O HEMACHANDRA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶14

3 . CHANDRIKA D/O HEMACHANDRA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶15

¶16

4 . DHANALAKSHMI D/O HEMACHANDRA GOWDA NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶17

ALL R/AT MUNDEV HOUSE GANJIMATA POST MUDUPERARA VILLAGE MANGALORE TALUK.

¶18

5 . THE PRINCIPAL ALVAS EDUCATION FOUNDATION MAIN ROAD, MUDABIDRI.

¶19

6 . DINESH NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS PATTROTU HOSUE ULAIBETTU PERMANKI POST GURUPURA MANGALORE.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. HALEEM AMMEN, ADV. FOR SRI ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4; R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.6.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1753/2009 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT-VI, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,12,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.

¶23

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated

¶26

¶27

25.06.2011 passed in MVC.No.1753/2009 by II Addl.

¶28

Senior Civil Judge & Member, MACT-VI, Mangalore, D.K.

¶29

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶30

On 22.07.2009 the deceased Yashavantha

¶31

Gowda was traveling as a pillion rider in Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-19-V-1107 from Yedapadavu towards Moodabidre. His friend Ashraf was riding the said motor cycle slowly and steadily by observing all the traffic rules. At about 4.45 pm., when the motor cycle reached near Gandhi Nagara Marpady village on Moodabidri, Mangalore, a Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-19-C-2191 came from the opposite direction in an extremely high speed and in a rash and negligent manner from wrong side of the road and hit against the motor cycle. As a result, the deceased Yashavantha Gowda sustained grievous head injuries due to which he lost consciousness. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Wenlock Hospital,

¶32

¶33

Mangalore. But he died on the way to the hospital due to the accidental injuries. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents and claimant Nos.3 and 4 are sisters of the deceased. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the MV Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.4,26,900/-. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,12,500/with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of its realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is not correct. Therefore, prays to make interference in this regard. Further submitted that there are two vehicles involved in the accident, which are offending vehicles. Therefore, the owner and insurer of motor cycle are also liable to pay the compensation. Hence, on this

¶35

¶36

ground also there is need for interference in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsel

¶38

appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that the multiplier ought to be taken as per the age of the deceased, but not as per the age of the parents and that is correctly taken by the Tribunal. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶39

Further submitted that the Tribunal has correctly held that the owner and insurer of the bus are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, in the absence of making the motor vehicle as party, the Tribunal has correctly held the owner of the bus No.KA-19-C-2191 and the Insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, submitted that there is no need to make interference in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶40

¶41

Here the claim petition is filed by

¶42

respondent Nos.1 to 4 under Section 163-A of the MV Act. The Tribunal has correctly taken the multiplier as 18 according to the age of the deceased. The appellant-Insurance Company has raised the ground that the appropriate multiplier ought to have been taken according to the age of the parents, but as per the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Sarla Verma and Others –VsDelhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in AIR 2009 SCC 3104 and National Insurance

¶43

Co. Ltd., –Vs- Pranay Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, t he appropriate multiplier would be as per the age of the deceased and that is correctly taken by the Tribunal. Hence, the multiplier taken by the Tribunal is correct.

¶44

¶45

There are four dependents to the deceased. Therefore, 1/3^rd of income was deducted towards the personal expenses and that is rightly deducted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.2,000/- after deduction of 1/3^rd towards the personal expenses. Therefore, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the compensation under the head “loss of dependency” at Rs.4,08,500/-, Rs.2,000/- was awarded towards “funeral expenses” and Rs.2,500/was awarded towards “loss of estate”. It is as per the Second Schedule under the MV Act. Hence, there is no need to make interference in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Further, even though, two vehicles are involved in the accident, but only the owner and insurer of the bus bearing Reg. No.KA-19-C-2191 are made as party. Therefore, without making other vehicle as party and filing of claim petition only against the owner and insurer of the bus is maintainable. Therefore, in this regard also,

¶46

¶47

I do not find any merit in the grounds urged by the appellant-Insurance Company. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is correct, which needs no interference. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

Appeal is dismissed .

¶50

The judgment and award dated 25.06.2011 passed in MVC.No.1753/2009 by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Member, MACT-VI, Mangalore, D.K., is hereby confirmed.

¶51

Draw award accordingly.

¶52

Registry is directed to transmit the deposited amount to the Tribunal along with TCR and the copy of this order forthwith.

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

Branch Manager v. Hemachandra Gowda S/O Late Narayana Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager v. Hemachandra Gowda S/O Late Narayana Gowda

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

Sri Praneyata Sharma Vs the Manager

Nataraja M Kasetty Vs Manohar

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Devaraju

Shivappa S/O Late Hanumappa Vs H M Shiva Prasad

Shri Vimal K S S/O Sri Sugantha Kumar L R Vs the Bracnh Manager

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Renukamma