Partly allowed

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt Vidya

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2022MFA/476/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed appeals jointly filed by an insurance company and claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court quashed the Tribunal's award of Rs.12,04,000 and modified it to Rs.9,72,888 based on recalculated notional income, dependents, and standard compensation heads.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation fixed at Rs.9,72,888/- payable with 6% interest from the date of claim petition.

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt Vidya — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MFA No.476 OF 2018 (MV)

¶7

C/W MFA No.3951 OF 2017 (MV)

¶8

IN MFA NO.476/2018:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional; Manager, Divisional Office, Jewel Plaza, Maruthi Veethika, Opp:Shrinidhi Medicals, Near Chittaranjan Circle, Udupi. Represented by Divisional Manager, Manipal, Dist:Udupi.

¶11

… Appellant

¶12

(By Sri.Ravish Benni, Advocate)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Smt.Vidya, W/o Late Chandrashekar Acharya, Aged about 42 years,

¶15

Shravya,

¶16

D/o Late Chandrashekar Acharya, Aged about 16 years,

¶17

Swajan,

¶18

S/o Late Chandrashekar Acharya, Aged about 14 years,

¶19

¶20

2^nd and 3^rd respondent are Minors, Rep. by their natural guardian mother 1^st respondent.

¶21

All are residing at Shilpa Kuteera, Temple Road, Ambalpady Village, Ambalady, Udupi Taluk & District – 576 145.

¶22

N.Chandrashekara Shetty, Aged about 68 years, S/o Ramarao, R/o Ramaprasad House, Nandilike Village & Post, Karkala Taluk, District:Udupi.

¶23

... Respondents

¶24

(By Sri.Pratheep.K.C., Advocate for R1 to R3; Notice to R4 is dispensed with)

¶25

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 20.01.2017 passed in MVC No.91/2015 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Udupi, awarding compensation of Rs.12,04,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶26

IN MFA NO.3951/2017:

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

Smt.Vidya, W/o Late Chandrashekar Acharya, Aged about 41 years,

¶29

Shravya, D/o Late Chandrashekar Acharya, Aged about 15 years,

¶30

Swajan,

¶31

S/o Late Chandrashekar Acharya, Aged about 13 years,

¶32

¶33

Appellant No.2 & 3 are Minors, Rep. by their natural guardian mother Appellant No.1.

¶34

All are residing at Shilpa Kuteera, Temple Road, Ambalpady Village, Ambalady, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District – 576 145.

¶35

… Appellants

¶36

(By Sri.Pratheep.K.C., Advocate)

¶37

AND:

¶38

M.Chandrashekara Shetty, Aged about 68 years, S/o Rama Rao, R/o Rama Prasad House, Nandilike Village & Post, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District- 575 004.

¶39

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its nearest Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Jewel Plaza, Maruthi Veethika, Opp:Shrinidhi Medicals, Near Chittaranjan Circle, Udupi- 575 065.

¶40

... Respondents

¶41

(By Sri.Ravish Benni, Advocate for R2; Notice to R1 is dispensed with)

¶42

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 20.01.2017 passed in MVC No.91/2015 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, At Udupi, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶43

These appeals, coming on for Admission, this day, this Court, delivered the following:

¶44

¶45

J U D G M E N T

¶46

MFA No.476/2018 is filed by the Insurance Company whereas MFA No.3951/2017 is filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short, ‘the Act’) being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.01.2017 passed by the MACT, Udupi in MVC No.91/2015. Since the challenge is to the same judgment, both the appeals are clubbed together, heard and common judgment is being passed.

¶47

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 11.10.2014 at about 6.15 p.m. the deceased Chandrashekar Acharya was moving from Karavali junction towards Ambalpady. At that time, the deceased stopped the motorcycle on the extreme left side of the road to purchase cloth near Bombay Bazar and when he stepped towards the said Bazar, at that time one Tipper Lorry bearing

¶48

¶49

registration No.KA-20/B-1547 coming from the same direction knocked the deceased along with the motorcycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot.

¶50

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

¶51

On service of summons, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed separate written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle had no a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the

¶52

¶53

deceased himself. It was further pleaded that the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶54

The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was placed ex-parte.

¶55

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On behalf of respondents, no witness was examined but got exhibited one document namely Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and

¶56

¶57

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.12,04,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.

¶58

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following contentions:

¶59

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, the same is not established by the claimants by producing documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

¶60

Secondly, there are 3 dependents. The Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/4^th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses.

¶61

¶62

Thirdly, contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble

¶63

Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANU RAM reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘loss of consortium and loss of love and affection’ is on the higher side. Hence he sought for reduction of compensation.

¶64

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing

¶65

for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶66

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by working as a carpenter. He has also produced the letter issued by one Nagesh Hegde stating that the deceased was earning Rs.800/- per day. Under these circumstances, the notional income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

¶67

Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL

¶68

¶69

INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. PRANAY SETHI AND

¶70

OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 10% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ should be the warrant where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60. The same may be considered.

¶71

Thirdly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶72

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶73

It is not in dispute that deceased Chandrashekhar Acharya died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶74

¶75

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by working as a carpenter. Except producing the letter issued by one Nagesh Hegde they have not produced any other document to establish the same and even they have not examined the author of the said document. Therefore, the Tribunal has considered the notional income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/- but the same is on the lower side. Even as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2014, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.8,500/p.m. Since the deceased was aged about 52 years, to

¶76

the aforesaid income, 10% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘PRANAY SETHI’ (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.9,350/-. Since there are 3

¶77

¶78

dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount, i.e., Rs.6,234/- has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 52 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘11’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,22,888/- (Rs.6,2341211) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶79

In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’. Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

¶80

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL

¶81

INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.2 and 3, children

¶82

¶83

of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’ .

¶84

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the

¶85

following compensation:

¶86

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	8,22,888
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of spousal consortium	40,000
Loss of Parental consortium	80,000
Total	9,72,888

¶87

In the result, the appeals are allowed in part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶88

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.9,72,888 /- as against Rs.12,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶89

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6%

¶90

¶91

p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶92

Excess amount, if any, before this Court shall be refunded to the appellant in MFA No.476/2018 after due verification. If excess amount is paid to the claimants, the appellant in MFA No.476/2018, i.e., the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the same from the claimants.

¶93

The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶94

Sd/JUDGE

¶95

Cm/-

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt Vidya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt Vidya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. G M Sunitha Vs Sri. Hiriyanna H P

Basavaraja Vs Ganji Lingareddy

Smt Shivalingamma Vs M/S Geekom Logistic Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Padmavathi Vs Sri Shaik Shajahan

Smt. Shilpha Vs Sri. N. Nagaraju

Smt Rangamma B Vs H G Chandramouli