Partly allowed

Mr Nityananda R Poojary v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2022MFA/1868/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed part of the appeal filed by legal representatives of a deceased motorcyclist. The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by reassessing loss of dependency, love and affection, and funeral expenses, directing the insurance company to pay the additional amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs. 7,67,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. awarded over the original sum.

Mr Nityananda R Poojary Vs Reliance General… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.JOSHI

¶7

M.F.A.No.1868/2017 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. NITYANANDA R. POOJARY, S/O. LATE RUKMAYYA POOJARY, AGED 52 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. SUNITHA M., W/O. NITHAYANANDA R. POOJARY, AGED 51 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT D.NO.4-67/1, PEJATHRODI, KAVALAMOODURU, BANTWAL TALUK, PRESENTLY R/AT ADARSH COMPOUND, D'SOUZA LANE, LOWE BENDOOR, KANKANADY, MANGALURU.

¶12

...APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI GURUPRASAD B.R., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., LOCAL OFFICE; MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD,

¶16

¶17

HAMPANKATTA, MANGALURU-575 001 REP.BY ITS MANAGER.

¶18

MR. VIRUPAKSHA K.N., S/O. LATE NANJAPPA, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT KATTIBELAGULI HOUSE, BAGIVALU POST, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI B PRADEEP AND S.MAHESHWARA, ADVOCATES FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶21

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.983/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, MANGALURU D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY C.M.JOSHI J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 06-12-2016 passed in MVC No.983/2015 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mangaluru, D.K. wherein the petition filed by the petitioners u/s 166 of MV Act, came to be allowed in part by awarding compensation of Rs.8,55,000/- together with interest, petitioners/

¶25

¶26

appellants herein have filed this appeal, by urging various grounds.

¶27

The parties are referred to as per their

¶28

nomenclature before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are as below:

¶30

That on 03-06-2015 at 3.45 p.m. one Sunil Dhanush

¶31

was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-19/EL-0252 from Bantwal towards his house and when he reached Madva Barakata, Kavalapadoor village of Bantwal Taluk, a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA.13.B.4999 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came from Punjalkatte from opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to which, Sunil Dhanush was thrown on the road and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death on the spot. The dead body was shifted to PHC Punjalkatte, after post mortem and inquest, dead body was handed over to petitioners and they performed obsequies and rituals at their native place by spending Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶32

¶33

The petitioners who are the legal representatives

¶34

of the deceased approached the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, seeking compensation from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the lorry contending that deceased was their only son, prior to the accident he was hale and healthy, aged about 20 years and studying in II year Diploma in Automobile at Vivekananda College at Puttur and also giving tuition for students and earning Rs.13,000/per month and therefore, they are entitled for compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-.

¶35

On receipt of notice from the Tribunal, 1st respondent remained absent and placed exparte and 2nd respondent-Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed its written statement.

¶36

The 2nd respondent - Insurance company has admitted that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA.13.B.4999 was insured with it, but liability, if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also contended

¶37

¶38

that driver was not holding valid and effective licence; after the accident mandatory provisions as required under Section 134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act were not complied; also denied that the accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle which was insured with it; that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive, arbitrary; disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased; that petitioners are not the LRs of deceased; they are not depending upon him, as 1st petitioner is having his own income and in view of violation of policy conditions, it is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶39

On the basis of the pleadings and contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed necessary issues and after considering the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P17 on behalf of petitioners and documentary evidence of Ex.R1 on behalf of 2nd respondent as no oral evidence is adduced on its

¶40

¶41

behalf, considering the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month, deducting 50% towards his personal expenses, applying multiplier taking the age of the mother of the deceased has awarded Rs.7,80,000/towards loss of dependency and also awarded compensation under other heads as below:

¶42

Loss of dependency	Rs.7,80,000/-
Loss of love and affection	Rs. 50,000/-
Transportation and funeral expenses	Rs. 25,000/-
Total	Rs.8,55,000/-

¶43

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶44

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants Sri Guruprasad B.R. and learned counsel Sri B. Pradeep, appearing for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 served and unrepresented.

¶45

We have perused the records meticulously with

¶46

reference to the arguments advanced by the learned

¶47

¶48

counsel for the appellant and the respondent-Insurance Company.

¶49

The perusal of the spot sketch, spot mahazar

¶50

and other police papers disclose that the lorry driver was not prosecuted for not possessing a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and chargesheet has been filed against the lorry driver. The insurance company has not produced any evidence in support of its contention on the liability and as such, no interference is needed so far as the finding of the Tribunal that the liability has to be fastened upon the respondent Insurance Company.

¶51

12 . The appellants/petitioners are the father and

¶52

mother of the deceased and they have contended that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.13,000/- per month by giving tuitions and contributing the same for the family. The evidence also discloses that the deceased was studying II year Diploma at Vivekananda Polytechnic Puttur at relevant point of time. Therefore, the notional income as on date of the accident i.e.. on 3-6-2015 has to be considered at Rs.10,000/- per month. In view of the

¶53

¶54

decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and others.¹ the future prospects have to be considered at 40% and therefore, the effective income for the purpose of calculations has to be taken at Rs.14,000/- per month and the deceased being a bachelor, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards the personal expenses. Therefore, the loss of dependency has to be calculated at Rs.7,000/x 12 x 18 =15,12,000/- by adopting multiplier of 18 for the age of the deceased.

¶55

In addition to the loss of dependency, the expenses of transportation of the body of the deceased, loss of estate are to be awarded at Rs.15,000/- each.

¶56

The compensation towards the loss of filial love and affection has to be awarded at Rs.40,000/- each to the petitioner in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Limited Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others.²

¶57

1 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶58

2 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 1546

¶59

¶60

15 . Thus, the compensation is reassessed by this

¶61

Court and the same is as below:

¶62

Loss of dependency	Rs.15,12,000/-
Loss of filial love and affection	Rs. 80,000/-
Loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
Transportation and funeral	Rs. 15,000/-
expenses
Total entitlement	Rs.16,22,000/-
Less: awarded by Tribunal	Rs. 8,55,000/-
Enhancement would be	Rs. 7,67,000/-

¶63

Thus, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, there shall be an increase of Rs.7,67,000/together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶64

Hence, we pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶67

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 6-12-2016 passed in MVC No.983/2015 by the Tribunal is modified by awarding additional enhanced compensation of Rs.7,67,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶68

¶69

(iii) All other conditions regarding apportionment and deposit remain unaltered.

¶70

(iv) Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

tsn*

Mr Nityananda R Poojary v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Nityananda R Poojary v. Reliance General Insurance Co. 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

Baiyanna Vs H.G.Chandramauli

C. Nagasmitha Vs B. R. Narendra Kumar

Smt Gowramma Vs Smt Jyothi Rodrigues

The State of Karnataka Vs Murali

State of Karnataka Vs Hanumesha

State of Karnataka Vs Prashanth