Allowed

Smt. Manjula v. Prasanna Kumara

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2022MFA.CROB/12/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two connected Motor Accident cases, the Insurance Company appealed against the Tribunal's award of compensation. The High Court partially allowed the appeal and cross-objection, modifying the compensation amount to Rs.9,17,550/- instead of Rs.7,71,350/- based on corrected income and future prospects calculations.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified to Rs.9,17,550/- with 6% interest on enhanced amount from date of petition.

Smt. Manjula Vs Prasanna Kumara — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.9407/2017 (MV-D)

¶7

CONNECTED WITH

¶8

M.F.A CROB. NO.12/2018 (MV-D)

¶9

IN MFA NO.9407/2017

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

THE MANAGER (LEGAL) RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. OPP KSRTC BUS STAND MYSORE 570001. REP. BY RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, 5^TH FLOOR EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. REP. BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL

¶12

...APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND

¶15

SMT. MANJULA W/O LATE M K KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶16

R K SHYLAJA D/O LATE M K KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶17

¶18

SRI M K DIWAKARA S/O LATE M K KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶19

ALL ARE R/AT RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA HOBLI MANDYA DISTRICT-571434

¶20

SRI PRASANNA KUMARA S/O SWAMYGOWDA R/O CHINKAURALI VILLAGE AND HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571434

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI B M KENCHEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI V N MADHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3; R4 IS SERVED)

¶23

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.659/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA AND ETC.

¶24

IN MFA CROB. NO.12/2018

¶25

BETWEEN

¶26

SMT. MANJULA S/O LATE M K KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶27

R K SHYLAJA D/O LATE M K KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶28

M K DIWAKARA S/O LATE M K KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶29

¶30

ALL ARE R/O RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571434

¶31

...CROSS OBJECTORS

¶32

(BY SRI B M KENCHEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI V N MADHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND

¶34

PRASANNA KUMARA S/O SWAMYGOWDA R/O CHINAKURALI VILLAGE AND HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571434 (OWNER OF THE TIPPER LORRY BEARING REG.NO.KA-09-A-8766)

¶35

THE MANAGER (LEGAL) GENERAL ASSURANCE CO RELIANCE TOWERS OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND MYSURU

¶36

… RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶38

THIS M.F.A CROB. IN MFA.NO.9407/2017 FILED U/O 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14/08/2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.659/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA AND ETC.

¶39

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING AND M.F.A. CROB. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

¶41

J U D G M E N T

¶42

The MFA No.9407/2017 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 14.08.2017 passed in MVC No.659/2015 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura (‘the Tribunal’ for short) questioning the liability fastened on the Insurance Company and also the quantum of compensation and the Cross Objection is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in both the matters.

¶44

The factual matrix of the case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that the deceased-M K Krishnegowda along with his brother’s son were returning from their native place in a motorcycle at that time, one tipper lorry came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said motorcycle, as a result, the injured - Krishnegowda had sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately shifted to Apollo BGS hospital at Mysuru and he died on 06.02.2015 hence, the claimants have claimed the compensation before the Tribunal that the deceased was an agriculturist and also carrying quarrying business and

¶45

¶46

was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The Tribunal after considering both the oral and doc evidence awarded the compensation of Rs.7,71,350/- with 9% interest, hence, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

¶47

The main contention of the Insurance Company that the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper lorry and also contended that even though there was no fitness certificate, liability is fasten on the Insurance Company and the counsel would submit that Law Officer of Insurance Company has been examined as RW1 and the Superintendent of RTO was examined as RW2 and both of

¶48

them have clearly stated that at the time of the accident, there was no fitness certificate of tipper lorry and inspite of the said contention, the liability is fastened on the Insurance Company and the other contention of the counsel for the Insurance Company that even though the deceased was aged about 60 years, the Tribunal has committed an error in adding 15% towards future prospectus and awarded exorbitant compensation and hence, it requires interference.

¶49

¶50

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3-claimants would submit that the Tribunal has taken the income of Rs.7,000/- per month and it was an accident of the year 2015 and fairly submits that instead of adding 10%, the Tribunal has added 15% future prospects and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meager in all heads hence, it requires interference.

¶51

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record it discloses that though the counsel for the Insurance Company contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and respondents have not examined the driver of the tipper lorry who is the right person to speak with regard to the negligence on the part of the deceased itself and only two witnesses have been examined i.e,. one is official of the Insurance Company and Superintendent of RTO and through RW2, B-register was marked. Hence, the very contention of the Insurance Company is that the negligence is on the part of the rider of the motorcycle cannot be accepted in the

¶52

¶53

absence of the cogent evidence before the Court. The other contention that there is no fitness certificate and only B-register is marked through RW2. Hence, the contention that the liability is fastened on the Insurance Company is an erroneous cannot be accepted.

¶54

Now coming to the quantum of compensation is

¶55

concerned, no doubt the deceased was aged about 60 years as per PM report at Ex.P8 and in between the age group of 50 to 60 years, not having any permanent employment, the Tribunal ought to have been taken 10% future prospectus instead of 15% hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in taking 15% towards future prospectus.

¶56

However, the Tribunal has taken the income of Rs.7,000/- instead of Rs.9,000/- since the accident is of the year 2015 and in the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal ought to have considered the notional income and having taken the income of Rs.9,000/- as contended by the claimants counsel, if it is added 10% of future prospectus, it comes to Rs.9,900/(9,000 + 900) and the claimants are three in numbers hence, 1/3^rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses and after

¶57

¶58

deducting 1/3^rd , it comes to Rs.6,600/- (9,900 – 3,300) and the relevant multiplier would be 9 hence, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,12,800/- (6,600x12x9) and the claimants are the wife, daughter and son, they are entitled for the compensation of Rs.40,000/- each on the head of loss of love and affection and apart from that they are entitled for Rs.33,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The Tribunal also considered the medical expenses of Rs.51,750/- and the same is based on the documentary evidence and hence, it does not requires any interference and in all the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.9,17,550/- as against Rs.7,71,350/-.

¶59

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶60

following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) The appeal and the cross objection are allowed in part.

¶63

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 14.08.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.659/2015 is modified granting compensation of Rs.9,17,550/- as against

¶64

¶65

Rs.7,71,350/- with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till deposit.

¶66

(iii) The amount in deposit, if any, made by the appellant in MFA No.9407/2017 is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶67

(iv) The Registry is directed to send the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

Smt. Manjula v. Prasanna Kumara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manjula v. Prasanna Kumara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ramesh G Vs Sri Rajanna

Chikkanna @ Chikkegowda Vs Venkategowda B R

Sri Lakshmi Sagar Vs Sri Ninge Gowda a B

The Managing Director Vs Kum. Sindhu

The Managing Director Vs Smt. Girija Bhaskar

Smt. Girija Bhaskar Vs the Managing Director