Partly allowed

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited v. Eregowda

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2022MFA/32/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed the insurance company's appeal in part. It modified the tribunal's award by correcting the multiplier, future prospects percentage, notional income, and interest rate, resulting in a reduced total compensation payable to the heirs.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced to Rs.10,78,200 with interest at 6% per annum; the insurance company's appeal allowed in part.

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Eregowda — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 32 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.32 OF 2014 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO. 484/2, 2ND FLOOR, SADHU CHINNAMMA BUILDING, S.D.M TEMPLE ROAD, KUMARA STREET CROSS, OPP. SYNDICATE BANK, K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE 560036, NOW REP. BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. LAKSHMI NARASAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. A.M. VENKATESH., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

EREGOWDA, S/O. KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶14

¶15

MFA No. 32 of 2014

¶16

SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O EREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶17

JAYALAKSHMI, D/O EREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, UNMARRIED

¶18

ALL ARE R/AT KADAMBAHALLI (V), VIRUPAKSHAPURA (HO), CHENNAPATNA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT. ASLO R/AT C/O RAJU, NO.46/9, NEW NO.24/8, 1ST CROSS, GORAGUNTEPALYA, BEHIND POOJAMMA TEMPLE, BANGALORE 560022.

¶19

A. HARIKRISHNA, NO. 143, 1ST CROSS, A.NARAYANAPURA, D.V. NAGAR, BANGALORE -560016. (RC OWNER OF TATA INDICA CAR BEARING REG.NO.KA-04/B-2011)

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY KUM. CHINTHANA .P., ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 – NOTICE SERVED)

¶22

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1189/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, & MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.11,12,000/-

¶23

¶24

MFA No. 32 of 2014

¶25

WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶26

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 04.09.2013 in MVC.No.1189/2012 passed by XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge & Member, MACT, Bangalore (SCCH15), praying to reduce the quantum of compensation.

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that, on 17.07.2011 at about 11.30 pm., deceased Sampath Kumar was crossing Garebhavipalya Junction on Hosur road slowly and cautiously observing the traffic norms and regulations. At that time, a Tata Indica Car bearing Reg.No.KA-04-B-2011 came from Electronic city in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Consequently, he fell

¶30

down and suffered grievous injuries on head.

¶31

¶32

MFA No. 32 of 2014

¶33

Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the records.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in making addition of 50% of income towards future prospects in life, but it ought to have been 40%. Further submitted that there is error crept in deducting 1/3^rd of income of the deceased, but the deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, 50% of income has to be deducted. Further the age of the deceased is 26 years, hence, the appropriate multiplier ought to be 17. But the Tribunal has taken the multiplier at 18. Therefore, on this ground, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Therefore, prays to reduce the same.

¶35

Further submitted that the rate of interest has

¶36

to be awarded at 6% p.a., instead of 8% p.a., awarded by

¶37

¶38

MFA No. 32 of 2014

¶39

the Tribunal. Hence, requested to scale down the rate of interest at 6% p.a.

¶40

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submitted that the notional income at Rs.4,500/- p.m., taken by the Tribunal is on the lesser side. Therefore, even though, the claimant has not preferred any appeal, but the actual income ought to be taken into consideration. Therefore, submitted that as per the Notional Income Chart recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority for the year 2011, income at Rs.6,500/- per month is to be taken into consideration. Therefore, submitted that, even though, the claimant has not preferred any appeal, but in what way, the Tribunal has committed error, as canvassed by the Insurance Company, in the same way the error committed in holding lesser notional income is also to be corrected. Therefore, requested to take notional income at Rs.6,500/- p.m., as notional income of the deceased. Insofar as other

¶41

¶42

MFA No. 32 of 2014

¶43

parameters are concerned as canvassed by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is fairly conceded. Therefore, considering the respective arguments as above stated, the amount of compensation awarded on each heads is liable to be re-assessed and quantified.

¶44

The deceased was aged 26 years and was a bachelor. The Tribunal has considered the notional income at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is on the lesser side. But for the year 2011, the monthly income at Rs.6,500/- per month is to be taken into consideration.

¶45

The Tribunal has committed error in making addition of 50% of income towards loss of future prospects, but that has to be taken at 40% as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶46

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi¹ .

¶47

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶48

¶49

MFA No. 32 of 2014

¶50

The Tribunal has committed error in deducting 1/3^rd of amount towards personal and living expenses, but

¶51

the deceased was a bachelor as on the date of the accident and the legal dependents are parents and one sister. Therefore, 50% of income has to be deducted. The deceased was aged 26 years, hence, the appropriate multiplier applicable is “17”, but not 18 as held by the Tribunal. Even in the absence of appeal or cross-objection by the claimants, the compensation can be determined on correct parameters. Even though, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.4,500/- per month, but that is on the lesser side for the reason that for the year 2011, the cost of living index is to be considered. Therefore, as per the cost of living index as adopted by the Government of India based on the statistics taken on average income of the citizen in the country, it is appropriate to take minimum income at Rs.6,500/- per month as recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. Therefore,

¶52

¶53

MFA No. 32 of 2014

¶54

this cannot be construed as raising of income in the absence of appeal or cross-objection by the claimant, but this process by this Court is making correction of the error

¶55

what is committed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the compensation amount awarded under the head loss of dependency is re-assessed and quantified as follows: Rs.6,500/- x Rs.2,600/- (40% of Rs.6,500/-)=Rs.9,100/-

¶56

Rs.9,100/- x 50% x 17 x 12=Rs.9,28,200/-

¶57

Accordingly, compensation of Rs.9,28,200/- is

¶58

awarded under the head loss of dependency.

¶59

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on

¶60

other heads is not correct. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/- under the head loss of love and affection, which is found to be not correct and the same is set aside. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General

¶61

¶62

MFA No. 32 of 2014

¶63

Insurance Co. Limited Vs., Nanu Ram & Others² , compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/x 3 claimants) is awarded under the head loss of consortium including loss of love and affection. Further compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded under the head loss of estate and Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head transportation of dead body and funeral expenses is found to be on the higher side. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the heads loss of estate and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses.

¶64

The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a., is scaled down to 6% p.a. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be allowed-inpart.

¶65

2 2018 ACJ 2782

¶66

10 -

¶67

MFA No. 32 of 2014

¶68

The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,78,200/- as against Rs.11,12,000/- awarded by

¶69

the Tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Hence, I proceed to pass the following

¶70

ORDER

¶71

The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶72

The impugned judgment and award dated 04.09.2013 in MVC.No.1189/2012 passed by XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge & Member, MACT, Bangalore (SCCH15) is modified. The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,78,200/- as against Rs.11,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶73

11 -

¶74

MFA No. 32 of 2014

¶75

The amount in deposit made by the Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal along with TCR and copy of this order forthwith.

¶76

No order as to costs.

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

¶78

PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited v. Eregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited v. Eregowda

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

Nataraj Vs Yogisha

Sri. Rangeshappa K S Vs Prabhakara H M

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Ramesha

Smt M Bujjamma @ Bujjamma Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Master Mithun Vs Shri. Shivakumar K

Sri. D. C. Kumar Vs Sri. Premkumar