Partly allowed

Sanjudevi v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2022MFA/377/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed the appeal of the victim's family and dismissed the insurance company's appeal. The court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 17,04,000 to Rs. 18,25,900 based on Karnataka guidelines, directing the insurer to pay the enhancement with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,21,900/- awarded along with interest at 6% p.a., payable by the Insurance Company within four weeks.

Sanjudevi Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 377 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5937 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2017 (MV-D)

¶10

C/W

¶11

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5937 OF 2016 (MV-D)

¶12

IN M.F.A.No. 377 OF 2017

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SANJUDEVI, S/O LATE ASHOK PASWAN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O.H.NO.39 GRAM:KABAR KALA PANCHAYAT:KANAN THANA:JHAJHA TOLA KABAR KALAN T.CHHAPA JAMUI BIHAR - 811 308.

¶16

MASTER GUDDU KUMAR S/O LATE ASHOK PASWAN AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 377 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5937 of 2016

¶19

R/O H.N.39, GRAM:KABAR KALA PANCHAYAT:KANAN THANA:JHAJHA TOLA KABAR KALAN T.CHHAPA JAMUI BIHAR - 811 308.

¶20

KUM.KAJAL KUMARI D/O LATE ASHOK PASWAN AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS R/O H.N.39, GRAM:KABAR KALA PANCHAYAT:KANAN THANA:JHAJHA TOLA KABAR KALAN T.CHHAPA JAMUI BIHAR - 811 308.

¶21

MASTER SIDDU KUMAR S/O LATE ASHOK PAWSAN AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS R/O H.N.39, GRAM:KABAR KALA PANCHAYAT:KANAN THANA:JHAJHA TOLA KABAR KALAN T.CHHAPA JAMUI BIHAR - 811 308.

¶22

KUM.KUSHBOO JAMALI D/O LATE ASHOK PASWAN AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS R/O H.N.39, GRAM:KABAR KALA PANCHAYAT:KANAN THANA:JHAJHA TOLA KABAR KALAN T.CHHAPA JAMUI BIHAR - 811 308.

¶23

¶24

MFA No. 377 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5937 of 2016

¶25

SMT. CHAMELI DEVI W/O ISHWDARI PASWAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O H.N.39, GRAM:KABAR KALA PANCHAYAT:KANAN THANA:JHAJHA TOLA KABAR KALAN T.CHHAPA JAMUI BIHAR - 811 308.F APPELLANTS NO.2, 3, 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.SANJUDEVI, S/O LATE ASHOK PASWAN AGED 31 YEARS R/O H.N.39, GRAM:KABAR KALA PANCHAYAT:KANAN THANA:JHAJHA TOLA KABAR KALAN T.CHHAPA JAMUI BIHAR - 811 308.

¶26

...APPELLANTS

¶27

(BY SRI T.VIJAY KUMAR , ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD BY ITS MANAGER, NO.28, CENTINARY BUILDING EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR NEAR CITI BANK M.G. ROAD BANGALORE- 1.

¶30

VINAY.H

¶31

¶32

MFA No. 377 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5937 of 2016

¶33

S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/O NO.31/10 3RD MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS KBS 3RD STAGE, SRINIVASANAGAR, BANGALORE- 85.

¶34

...RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI H.S.LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.B.RAMESH ADVOCATE FOR R2;)

¶36

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.05.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2806/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶37

IN M.F.A.NO.5937 OF 2016

¶38

BETWEEN:

¶39

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR CENTENARY BUILDING M.G. ROAD BANGALORE- 560 001 BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER (LEGAL).

¶40

...APPELLANT

¶41

(BY SRI LINGARAJ H.S. , ADVOCATE)

¶42

AND:

¶43

SANJU DEVI, NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS W/O LATE ASHOK PASWAN.

¶44

¶45

MFA No. 377 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5937 of 2016

¶46

MASTER GUDDU KUMAR NOW AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS S/O LATE ASHOK PASWAN.

¶47

KUM.KAJAL KUMARI NOW AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS D/O LATE ASHOK PASWAN.

¶48

MASTER SIDDU KUMAR NOW AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS S/O LATE ASHOK PAWSAN.

¶49

KUM.KUSHBOO JAMALI NOW AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS D/O LATE ASHOK PASWAN.

¶50

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 BEING MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN.

¶51

MT CHAMELI DEVI NOW AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O ISHWDARI PASWAN

¶52

ALL ARE R/O H.N.39, GRAM:KABAR KALA PANCHAYAT:KANAN THANA:JHAJHA TOLA KABAR KALAN T.CHHAPA JAMUI BIHAR - 811 308.

¶53

VINAY.H, MAJOR S/O HANUMANTHAPPA R/O NO.31/10 3RD MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS KBS 3RD STAGE,

¶54

¶55

MFA No. 377 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5937 of 2016

¶56

SRINIVASANAGAR, GIRINAGAR BANGALORE- 85.

¶57

...RESPONDENTS

¶58

(BY SRI T.VIJAYA KUMAR. ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R6; R2 TO R5 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1 SRI.B.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R7;)

¶59

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.05.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2806/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.17,04,000/WITH INTEREST @ 9 % P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.

¶60

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY C.M.JOSHI J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶61

JUDGMENT

¶62

By consent of learned counsel for both sides, the matters are taken up for final disposal, though they are posted for Admission.

¶63

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 04.05.2016 passed in MVC No.2806/2015 by the learned XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bangalore, awarding compensation of Rs.17,04,000/- with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of petition till its payment, petitioners have filed MFA No.377/2017 seeking enhancement of compensation

¶64

¶65

MFA No. 377 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5937 of 2016

¶66

and the Insurance Company has filed MFA No.5937/2016

¶67

seeking to set aside the same.

¶68

The parties are referred to as per their nomenclature

¶69

before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶70

The brief facts of the case are as below:

¶71

The petitioners are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Ashok Paswan who was aged 35 years, was a coolie and was earning Rs.500/- per day. They have filed a claim petition claiming compensation contending that On 21.06.2015 at about 05.25 p.m., Ashok Paswan was walking on the left side of BB road, NH-7, Bangalore, when he reached near Sadahalli Junction, one Mahendra Verito Car bearing No.KA41-A-0763 coming from Hosur gate towards Airport in rash and negligent manner dashed against said Ashok Paswan. Due to which, the said Ashok Paswan fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was taken to Apoorva Hospital, Yelahanka wherein first aid treatment was given and then, he was shifted to Prolife Multispeciality Hospital, Byatarayanapur, Bangalore for further treatment,

¶72

¶73

MFA No. 377 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5937 of 2016

¶74

wherein he was admitted inpatient, but he succumbed to injuries on 25.06.2015 at about 02.40 p.m., The dead body was shifted to Government Hospital, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, wherein post mortem was conducted and the dead body was handed over to the petitioners who spent Rs.4,00,000/towards transportation, funeral and obsequies. The untimely death of the deceased severely affected the life style of the petitioners and they are under severe mental depression and agony and they could not come out of the shock till the date. It is the further case of the petitioners that Chikkajala Traffic police have registered Cr.No.65/2015 against the driver of the Mahendra Verito Car bearing No.KA-41-A-0763 for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The respondents are the insurer and owner of the said car and are liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioners have sought for awarding compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- with cost and interest.

¶75

On receipt of summons from the Tribunal, 1st respondent appeared before the Tribunal through its counsel

¶76

and filed its written statement denying the averments of the petition as false. It has admitted the issuance of policy in

¶77

¶78

MFA No. 377 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5937 of 2016

¶79

favour of 2nd respondent in respect of Mahendra Verito Car bearing No.KA-41-A-0763, but contended that the insured and the concerned police have not complied with their mandatory duties, that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident, that the said accident has not occurred as stated in the petition, that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased who was crossing the road without observing the moving vehicles and it was a self accident, that the driver of insured vehicle was not responsible for the accident, but he was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. It is further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant, arbitrary, unreasonable and without any legal basis and sought to dismiss the petition.

¶80

2nd respondent is the owner of the vehicle and has not appeared before the Tribunal inspite of deemed service of notice by substitute service i.e., by paper publication and hence, he is placed exparte.

¶81

10 -

¶82

MFA No. 377 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5937 of 2016

¶83

On the basis of the pleadings and contentions of the

¶84

parties, the Tribunal has framed necessary issues for its consideration.

¶85

Before the Tribunal, 1st petitioner got examined herself as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P13. On the other hand, officer of the Insurance Company is examined as RW1 and got marked Exs. R1 to 3.

¶86

The Tribunal after hearing both the sides and considering the oral evidence of PW 1 and RW1 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P13 and Exs.R1 to 3 on both sides, allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.17,04,000/- as compensation under different heads as below:

¶87

Loss of dependency Rs.	12,17,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.	1,20,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.	1,20,000/-
Medical bills Rs.	1,87,000/-
Transportation of dead body and Rs.	30,000/-
funeral expenses
Loss of consortium to the petitioner no.1 Rs.	30,000/-
Total Rs.	17,04,000/-

¶88

11 -

¶89

MFA No. 377 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5937 of 2016

¶90

Being aggrieved by the same, both the petitioners on the one side and the Insurance Company on the other have approached this Court in these appeals.

¶91

Respondents appeared in pursuant to the notice issued by this Court.

¶92

We have heard learned counsel Sri T. Vijaya Kumar appearing for the appellants/petitioners and the learned counsel Sri H.S.Lingaraj, appearing for the respondentInsurance Company and Sri. G. Ramesh appearing for respondent/owner of the vehicle.

¶93

The petitioners have approached this Court in appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and it should have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.500/- per day i.e. Rs.15,000/- per month and should have awarded the compensation of Rs.35,00,000/as claimed.

¶94

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

¶95

Insurance Company Sri H.S. Lingaraj has contended that the future prospects of the income of the deceased should not

¶96

12 -

¶97

MFA No. 377 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5937 of 2016

¶98

have been considered by the Tribunal as the matter is seized of by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. During his submissions, he has conceded to the fact that, the decision of the larger bench of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's has given a quietus to the matter and this appeal was filed prior to the said decision of the Apex Court.

¶99

Thus, the only question that remains to be considered by this Court in these appeals is regarding the quantum of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal.

¶100

The fact that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence of the driver of the Mahendra Verito Car bearing No.KA-41-A-0763 by hitting the deceased Ashok Paswan who was a pedestrian has been aptly considered by the Tribunal and this aspect is not in dispute. The only fact urged by the learned counsel for the insurance company is regarding the non production of the permit of the said vehicle. The absence of a permit before the Tribunal is not a reason to absolve the liability of the insurance Company. Therefore, we proceed to consider the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶101

13 -

¶102

MFA No. 377 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5937 of 2016

¶103

The deceased Ashok Paswan though said to be aged about 35 years as per the P.M. report, conclusive proof in respect of age is available in the form of Voters ID and therefore, the Tribunal accepted the same and held the age of the deceased to be 48 years. It proceeded to consider the notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month since there was no other proof of the income. It also added future prospects at 30% in pursuance to the decision in Munnalal Jain 's case. The view taken up by the Apex Court in Munnalal Jain's case has been considered at length in the Full Bench decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case. In that view of the matter, the only aspect remains to be considered is, the income of the deceased. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in connection with settlement of disputes before the Lok Adalaths, which is arrived by broadly considering the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and other parameters, monthly income of Rs.9,000/- is prescribed for the age of 48 years during the year 2015. As a consequence, the loss of dependency is calculated

¶104

14 -

¶105

MFA No. 377 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5937 of 2016

¶106

as: Rs.9,000/- + (9000 x 30%)=Rs.11,700/- x 12 x 3/4 x 13=13,68,900/-.

¶107

In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Limited Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others¹ , a sum of Rs.40,000/- each has to be granted to Petitioners No.1 to 6 i.e. Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of consortium and love and affection. The petitioners are also entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶108

Thus, the compensation is reassessed as below:

¶109

Loss of dependency	Rs.13,68,900/-
Loss of love and affection	Rs. 2,40,000/-
Loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
Medical bills	Rs. 1,87,000/-
Transportation of dead body and	Rs. 15,000/-
funeral expenses
Total	Rs.18,25,900/-
Less: awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.17,04,000/-
Enhancement	Rs. 1,21,900/-

¶110

The Tribunal has awarded an interest of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount. We do not wish to interfere in the

¶111

1 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 1546

¶112

15 -

¶113

MFA No. 377 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5937 of 2016

¶114

same. However, the enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a.

¶115

Thus, in addition to what has been awarded by the

¶116

Tribunal, there shall be an increase of Rs.1,21,900/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶117

Hence, we pass the following:

¶118

ORDER

¶119

(i) The appeal filed by the appellants/petitioners in MFA No.377/2017 is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA No.5937/2016 is dismissed.

¶120

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 04-05-2016 passed in MVC No.2806/2015 by the Tribunal is modified awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.1,21,900/with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶121

(iii) The petitioner No.1 is entitled for 30%, petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are entitled for 15% each and the petitioner No.6 is

¶122

16 -

¶123

MFA No. 377 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5937 of 2016

¶124

entitled for 10% of the enhanced compensation amount along with accrued interest.

¶125

(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.

¶126

(v) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith.

¶127

Sd/JUDGE

¶128

Sd/JUDGE

¶129

tsn* List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14

Sanjudevi v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjudevi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srinivasan. M Vs M/S. Tata Aig Insurance Co. Ltd.

State of Karnataka Vs Santhosh

Sri. Shivashankara @ Shankara Vs Sri. Shanavaskeloth

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Sanju Devi

Smt. Srimathi Vs Mr. Umesh

State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Chandrappa