Dismissed

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. Jangama Basamma

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2022MFA/6509/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed an insurance appeal challenging a motor vehicle accident compensation award. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to fix the multiplier based on the deceased's age and confirmed the finding of rash and negligent driving.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal's Judgment and Award dated 15.05.2014 are confirmed.

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Jangama… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

MFA NO.6509 OF 2014 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUDDAPPA COMPLEX, SIRANI ROAD, TUMKUR CITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE, 144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRINIVASA K.N., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SMT. JANGAMA BASAMMA W/O LATE PARAMESWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O AMARAPURAM VILLAGE, AMARAPURA MANDAL, MADAKASIRA TALUK, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH STATE NOW R/AT SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION, NEAR NALANDA CONVENT, TUMKUR CITY 572101.

¶11

SRI.H.N.PRAVEEN S/O H.N.NEELAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OWNER OF THE MARUTHI OMNI, R/AT SML MOTORS, KAIPATE, BASAVANA DEVARA GUDI, DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)

¶13

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.05.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.343/2010 BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, TUMKUR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶15

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

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and Award passed in MVC No.343/2010 dated 15.05.2014 by the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Tumkur, on the ground that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal was according to the age of the deceased but the multiplier ought to have been taken according to the age of the mother.

¶18

Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the records.

¶19

Brief facts of the case are that on 24.01.2009 one M.P. Shivakumar, son of the claimant, was returning

¶20

¶21

from Nidagal temple to Amalapura in a Maruti Omni bearing Registration No.KA-01-M-6483. Due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver, around 5.00 a.m., the Omni vehicle capsized near Spurthi Public School. As a result, M.P. Shivakumar sustained head injury and other bleeding injury all over the body. He was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Chitradurga. He succumbed to the injuries at 9.10 a.m. on the same day. Hence, the mother of the deceased M.P. Shivakumar filed a claim petition against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle in MVC No.343/2010 before the Tribunal at Tumkur, seeking compensation.

¶22

Upon issuance of notice, both the respondents appeared through their respective learned counsel and filed separate written statements. The Tribunal, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced and hearing the arguments of learned counsel, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.5,35,000/- as compensation to the claimant with interest at 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company has come up in this appeal praying to set aside

¶23

¶24

the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal dated 15.05.2014 in MVC No.343/2010.

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in taking the age of the deceased for adopting the multiplier while calculating the loss of dependency. Further the Insurance Company has raised another contention regarding negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle by stating that the driver of the Maruti Omni bearing Registration No.KA-01-M-6483 was not rash and negligent.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - claimant submitted that the Tribunal is justified in taking the multiplier according to the age of the deceased and it is as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VARMA AND OTHERS V/S DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 and NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, thereby the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

¶28

I have gone through the records. The Tribunal

¶29

has held that deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Omni bearing Registration No.KA-01M-6483 by its driver.

¶30

The Tribunal upon perusal of all the relevant documents and appreciating both oral and documentary evidence produced, has answered issue No.2 in the affirmative by holding that the driver of the Maruti Omni was rash and negligent and caused the accident. Upon reappreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal is found to be correct and justified. In all the police documents such as First Information Statement, FIR, IMV report, Inquest report and the statements collected by the I.O. reveal that the driver of the Maruti Omni bearing Registration No.KA-01-M-6483 was negligent and rash and accordingly the charge sheet was filed. I do not find any illegality in the approach of the Tribunal in appreciation of evidence. Therefore I do not find any merit in the contention of the Insurance Company with regard to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. On this

¶31

¶32

ground, the appeal of the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

The Tribunal has applied the multiplier according to the age of the deceased. But it is the contention raised by the Insurance Company that the multiplier should be applied as per the age of the mother the claimant. This point of law is no more res-integra in view of the Judgment in SARLA VARMA and PRANAY SETHI CASES (SUPRA) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the multiplier can be adopted as per the age of the deceased. In the present case, the deceased was aged 27 years and accordingly the multiplier of 17 was taken by the Tribunal which is correct. Accordingly the Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.

¶34

Therefore in view of the dictum of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra, the Tribunal is correct in choosing the multiplier according to the age of the deceased. There is no merit found in the contention of the Insurance Company that in order to

¶35

¶36

calculate loss of dependency, the age of the mother has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, even on this ground, the appeal of the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass

¶38

the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The appeal in MFA No.6509/2014 is dismissed.

¶41

The Judgment and Award in MVC No.343/2010 dated

¶42

15.05.2014 passed by the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Tumkur, is hereby confirmed.

¶43

The amount deposited by the Insurance Company in this appeal before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal along with a copy of this Judgment and the concerned Tribunal records, forthwith.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

sac*

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. Jangama Basamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. Jangama Basamma

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

Sri K S Raju Vs Sri Umesh

Sri Dheeraj Vs Sri Narayana Nalke

The Legal Manager Vs Mr Dasharath.K

The Chairman and Managing Director Vs Sri.Kishore

The National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Manjunath

Kishore Vs the Chairman and Managing Director