Partly allowed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Bikya Nayak

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2022MFA/3996/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Insurance Company filed an appeal challenging liability and quantum of compensation. The court held liability remained based on a Supreme Court precedent regarding driver licenses. The compensation amount was deemed appropriate, but the interest rate was reduced from 7.5% to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Interest awarded on compensation reduced from 7.5% per annum to 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Bikya… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

M.F.A.No.3996/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

M.F.A.NO.3996/2018 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., RAMANAGARA BRANCH OFFICE,

¶10

THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, 5^TH & 6^TH FLOORS, KRUSHI BHAVAN HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560001. REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

1 . BIKYA NAYAK. S/O LATE RAMUDU NAYAK. AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS. R/AT NO 13, DODDATHANDYA. KANAKAPURA TALUK. RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶15

2 . RAVI T C., S/O CHOWDA SHETTY MAJOR IN AGE R/AT T M DODDI VILLAGE,

¶16

¶17

M.F.A.No.3996/2018

¶18

KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMNAGARA DISTRICT (OWNER OF THE A/R NO KA-42-7894)

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1-SERVED)

¶21

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.12.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.182/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KANAKAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,13,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 7.5% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶22

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

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The present appeal is filed by the appellant-

¶25

Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 21.12.2017 in MVC.No.182/2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kanakapura, questioning the liability as well as quantum of compensation.

¶26

¶27

M.F.A.No.3996/2018

¶28

In the present case, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the compensation.

¶29

In the present case, the driver of the Autorickshaw (transport) was holding driving licence to drive LMV (non-transport). The ground urged in the appeal memorandum as well as canvassed by the appellant-Insurance Company is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

¶30

MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE

¶31

COMPANY LIMITED¹ . Hence, the issue involved is no more res integra . Therefore, the driver holding driving licence to drive LMV (non-transport) is also competent to drive LMV (transport). Therefore, the appeal on the liability is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

With regard to quantum of compensation

¶33

also, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the

¶34

1 AIR 2017 SC 3668

¶35

¶36

M.F.A.No.3996/2018

¶37

reason that the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.4,000/- per month, which is on the lesser side. The income ought to be taken at Rs.8,000/- per month considering the year of accident as 2013. Further, even though, the husband is the only surviving member of the deceased, 1/3^rd is deducted by the Tribunal, but that is compensated by taking lesser notional income by the Tribunal.

¶38

After re-considering the case and if the claimant had preferred an appeal, then the income would have been considered at Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is found to be just and proper. Accordingly, on the quantum also, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

The Tribunal has granted interest at 7.5%

¶40

per annum and the same is reduced to 6% per annum. Therefore, only insofar as rate of interest is concerned, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company

¶41

¶42

M.F.A.No.3996/2018

¶43

is liable to be allowed-in-part. Accordingly, I proceed

¶44

to pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed-in-part only with regard to rate of interest is concerned.

¶47

The impugned judgment and award dated 21.12.2017 in MVC.No.182/2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kanakapura, is modified to the extent that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

¶48

No order as to costs.

¶49

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

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Bikya Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Bikya Nayak

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

Premamma Vs H P Chandrappa

Smt K M Yashodamma Vs Sri Richard Wilson

Smt K M Yashodamma Vs Sri Richard Wilson

Smt Rathi K G Vs Sri Nithish

Sri. Muthuraj Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Ningamma Vs M/S United Ins Co. Ltd.