Partly allowed

Regional Manager v. Geetha

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2022MFA/1908/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal by an insurance company challenged the Moto Vehicle Court's award of compensation to the mother and minor siblings of a deceased minor child killed in a 2012 accident. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the compensation from Rs. 5,50,000 to Rs. 5,00,000 by setting aside the funeral expenses head, but upheld the 9% interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Modified impugned order reducing compensation to Rs. 5,00,000 with 9% interest; funeral expenses head set aside.

Regional Manager Vs Geetha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

M.F.A.NO.1908/2017 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

REGIONAL MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., #5/4, 3^RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE, BILEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD, OFF: B.G.ROAD, IIM POST, BENGALURU-560 076. REP. BY SHRIRAM GIC LTD. HEAD OFFICE, E-08, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN – 302 022.

¶8

...APPELLANT

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

GEETHA, W/O LATE SURESH, AGEDA BOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT AYANUR, SHIVAMOGA DIST-577 201.

¶12

KUM RAMYA, D/O LATE SURESHA, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS.

¶13

PRASHANTHA, S/O LATE SURESHA, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,

¶14

¶15

R2 AND R3 BEING MINOR REPTD BY NEXT FRIEND GUARDIAN CHELUVI, W/O VEDIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT SANTEKADUR VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGA DIST-577 222.

¶16

SHIVASHANKARA, S/O LATE VENKATABHOVI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT MALALAKOPPA, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT-577 434.

¶17

HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O LATE HOSURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT B. RAMANAHALLI, ADIKERE POST, TARIKERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 228.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI M.V. MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 22.11.2022, R4 AND R5 SERVED)

¶20

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.428/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT-8, SHIVAMOGGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,50,000/WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶25

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 07.11.2016, passed in M.V.C.No.428/2013, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT-8, Shivamogga (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶26

The factual matrix of the case of the claimants

¶27

before the Tribunal is that the deceased, who was aged about 5 years met with an accident on 22.09.201 and as a result of the accidental injuries, he succumbed to the injuries and hence claim was made before the Tribunal. The claimants are the mother and minor brother and sister of the deceased. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim examined one witness as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 13. On the other hand, the respondent did not lead any evidence, however got marked the document policy as Ex.R.1. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record allowed the claim petition granting compensation of

¶28

¶29

Rs.5,50,000/- with 9% interest. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

¶30

The main contention of the Insurance Company is that the Tribunal committed a serious error in taking into consideration the Apex Court judgment in the case of KISHAN GOPAL AND ANOTHER v. LALA AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 and further the Tribunal committed an error in relying upon the decision of High Court of Karnataka rendered in M.F.A.No.640/2012 . The learned counsel would contend that the Tribunal should have considered respondent No.1 alone as a person entitled to get the compensation and in that view of the matter, a sum of Rs.15,000/- should have been deducted out of Rs.30,000/- determined as notional income of the deceased. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenses. The learned counsel would contend that the Tribunal committed a serious error in granting interest at the rate of 9% per annum contrary to Section 149(1) of MV Act and

¶31

Section 34 of CPC. The learned counsel in support of his submission relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the

¶32

case of MEENA DEVI v. NUNU CHAND MAHTO @ NEMCHAND

¶33

¶34

MAHTO AND OTHERS reported in 2022 SAR (Civil) 1057,

¶35

wherein for the death of a child aged about 12 years, the Apex Court granted the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with 7% interest and hence the learned counsel would contend that the interest may be awarded at 6% per annum.

¶36

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent claimants submits that the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding the compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-. The learned counsel would contend that the interest allowed at 7% per annum by the Apex Court was in a case of the accident of the year 2003 and this accident was occurred in 2012 and hence the judgment which was rendered in 2014 by the Apex Court allowing 9% interest cannot be reduced.

¶37

Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record and also considering the judgment of Meena Devi (supra), the Apex Court while disposing of a case of minor aged about 11 years considered the multiplicand of ‘15’ based on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported

¶38

¶39

in 2009 SAR (Civ) 592, Kishan Gopal (supra) and KURVAN ANSARI @ KURVAN ALI AND ANOTHER v. SHYAM KISHORE MURMU AND ANOTHER reported in 2021 Spp. SAR (Civ) 776 and awarded 7% interest.

¶40

Having perused the material available on record, this is a claim with regard to the accident of the year 2012 and in the case of Meena Devi (supra), the accident was occurred in 2003. Having considered the said fact into consideration and the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplicand of ‘15’ has to be applied. The Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari (supra) discussed with regard to the taking of the notional income of the minor deceased at Rs.25,000/- and in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) Rs.30,000/- is taken as notional income of the deceased and ultimately the Apex Court accepted the notional income of Rs.30,000/- in the case of Meena Devi (supra).

¶41

In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Meena Devi (supra), notional income is taken as Rs.30,000/- including future prospects and applying the multiplier of ‘15’, the loss of dependency comes to

¶42

¶43

Rs.4,50,000/-. Apart from that, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the conventional head. In all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal committed an error in awarding Rs.50,000/towards funeral expenses as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant and hence the same is set aside.

¶44

In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra), the very contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that interest has to be reduced to 6% cannot be accepted and hence the interest is awarded at the rate of 9% per annum.

¶45

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶46

following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶49

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 07.11.2016, passed in M.V.C.No.428/2013, is modified reducing the compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- from Rs.5,50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶50

¶51

(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today.

¶52

(iv) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Regional Manager v. Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Regional Manager v. Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrashekar Vs the Manager

Vijaykumar Vs the Manager

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Rajamma

Sri Krishnegowda Vs M/S Royal Sundaram Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Challappaji Vs Govinda Raju M

Shivanna @ Shivamurthy Vs G M Thippeswamy