Partly allowed

Legal Manager v. Bherulal

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2022MFA/2370/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed special appeals filed by the insurance company and claimants against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court recalculated the loss of dependency based on an estimated income of Rs. 8,000/month and reduced the interest rate from 8% to 6% per annum, resulting in a modified compensation of Rs. 13,35,400.

What did the court decide?

Compensation modified to Rs. 13,35,400/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. Insurance company directed to pay within six weeks.

Legal Manager Vs Bherulal — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

M.F.A.NO.2370/2015 (MV-D) C/W M.F.A.CROB.NO.102/2015 (MV-D)

¶7

IN M.F.A. NO.2370/2015:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

LEGAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, EAST WING, 5^TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

BHERULAL S/O LATE PREMCHAND NOW AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶14

SMT.BHURIDEVI W/O BHERULAL NOW AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶15

¶16

SRI. KAMALESH KUMAR S/O BHERULAL NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶17

PRIYANKA JAIN D/O BHERULAL NOW AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶18

MR. DEEPAK S/O NAVARATHAN, AGE: MAJOR

¶19

ALL ARE R/AT NO.2468 15^TH MAIN, II STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE-78

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. K. RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-5 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 09.01.2017)

¶22

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.5922/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 13^TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.13,94,000/WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶23

IN M.F.A. CROB. NO.102/2015:

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

SRI. BHERULAL AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O LATE PREMCHAND

¶26

¶27

SMT. BHURIDEVI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O SRI. BHERULAL 3. SRI. KAMALESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O SRI. BHERULAL 4. KUMARI. PRIYANKA JAIN AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS D/O SRI. BHERULAL CROSS OBJECTORS NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.13/1, 2^ND FLOOR, 1^ST CROSS, BVK IYENGAR ROAD, HKURIYOPET, CHICKPET, BANGALORE-560053.

¶28

…CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

MR. DEEPAK S/O NAVARATHAN, MAJOR IN AGE, NO.2468, 15^TH MAIN, II STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560078. 2. M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (R.G.I.C.) NO.28, EAST WING, 5^TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; VIDE ORDER DATED 20.01.2020 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH IN MFA NO.2370/2015)

¶32

¶33

THIS MFA CROB. IN MFA NO.2370/2015 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.5922/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF 13^TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT FOR THE COMPENSATION.

¶34

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

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and

¶37

the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

¶38

MFA No.2370/2015 and MFA Crob No.102/2015 are

¶39

filed by the Insurance Company as well as the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 22.12.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.5922/2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶40

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶41

¶42

The factual matrix of the case of the claimants

¶43

before the Tribunal is that the deceased - Shanthilal was working as Sales Executive and he was drawing salary of Rs.16,000/- per month. To substantiate the same, the claimants have examined the employer as PW.2 and marked salary certificates as Ex.P13. The Tribunal did not accept the evidence of PW.2 and also Exs.P12 and P13 and taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month while calculating the loss of dependency and awarded total compensation of Rs.13,94,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company and the claimants are before this Court challenging the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest.

¶44

The main contention of the learned counsel

¶45

appearing for the claimants before this Court is that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and also the compensation awarded on the other heads is very meager and the same requires to be enhanced.

¶46

¶47

Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking future prospects at 50% when the deceased was not having permanent source of income and apart from that instead of deducting 50%, the Tribunal committed an error in deducting 1/3^rd since the deceased was a bachelor and hence, it requires to be interfered with. Further, the learned counsel contended that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 8% per annum is on the higher side and the same requires to be reduced.

¶48

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that though the claimants claimed that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.16,000/- per month and examined the employer as PW2, except the evidence of PW.2 no documentary evidence is produced. The claimants relied upon Ex.P12 - certificate given by the employer and Ex.P13 - salary certificates (6 in numbers). No payment is made through bank and payment was made only by cash. Mere marking of the documents, Exs.P12 and P13 cannot

¶49

¶50

be relied upon. No doubt Exs.P12 and P13 are produced, the same are not supported by any bank statement or any material. The claimants have also not produced any document with regard to the employer is having Saree Centre and the deceased was working as a salesman. The Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the said contention of the claimant. However, the Tribunal committed an error in taking the income at Rs.6,000/- per month. The accident is of the year 2013. In the absence of documentary evidence, the notional income would be Rs.8,000/per month. The deceased was aged about 27 years. The relevant multiplier is '17'. Having considered the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month and after adding 40% future prospects, the income comes to Rs.11,200/- per month and after deducting 50%, the total income comes to Rs.5,600/- per month. By applying multiplier of '17', the loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,42,400/- (5,600 x 12 x 17). There are four claimants and hence, they are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each on the head of loss of love and affection apart from Rs.33,000/towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. In all, the

¶51

¶52

claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.13,35,400/as against Rs.13,94,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶53

As regards contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 8% is on the higher side, the matter was disposed of in the year 2014 and the accident was occurred in the year 2013, the Tribunal ought to have taken interest of the nationalised bank. Hence, it is appropriate to reduce the same to 6% instead of 8%.

¶54

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶55

following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) MFA No.2370/2015 filed by the Insurance Company and MFA Crob No.102/2015 filed by the claimants are allowed in part.

¶58

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 22.12.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.5922/2013, is modified granting compensation of Rs.13,35,400/- as against

¶59

¶60

Rs.13,94,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶61

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

¶62

(iv) In all other respects, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal remains undisturbed.

¶63

(v) The amount in deposit in MFA No.2370/2015, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶64

(vi) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

PMR

Legal Manager v. Bherulal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Legal Manager v. Bherulal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Manjula Vs Prasanna Kumara

The Managing Director Vs Kum. Sindhu

The Managing Director Vs Smt. Girija Bhaskar

Vimala @ Hemalatha Vs M.M.J.Somashekharappa

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. M. Sulochana

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Ravikumar