Partly allowed

The Branch Manager v. Sri. Hanamant S/O Balappa Mannikeri

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2023MFA/100179/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified a motor accident claim award, correcting the deceased's income and calculating 50% addition for future prospects and standard dependency losses. Compensation was enhanced from Rs. 35,23,688 to Rs. 48,04,906 with interest, while dismissing the insurer's appeal to reduce compensation allowing the claimants' appeal in part.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 48,04,906 with 6% interest from filing date; insurer to deposit within 8 weeks; insurer's appeal dismissed; claimants' appeal allowed in part.

The Branch Manager Vs Sri. Hanamant S/O Balappa… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8842 MFA No. 100179 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100179/2023 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101124/2023 (MV-D)

¶8

IN MFA.NO.100179/2023:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., RANI CHANNAMMA NAGAR, JAMKHANDI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶15

SRI HANAMANT S/O. BALAPPA MANNIKERI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE.

¶16

SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. HANAMANT MANNIKERI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

¶17

BOTH ARE R/O: MUDALAGI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶18

RUDRAPPA S/O. BASAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YANDIGERI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587206. …RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R.3 – SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8842 MFA No. 100179 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2023

¶22

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH MVC NO.425/2021, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, XIII MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, AT BANAHATTI, EXAMINE THE SAME AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.09.2022 BY REDUCING THE COMPENSATION TO THE JUST LEVEL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶23

IN MFA.NO.101124/2023:

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

HANAMANT S/O. BALAPPA MANNIKERI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: MUDALAGI-591 312, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶26

SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. HANAMANT MANNIKERI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. R/O: MUDALAGI-591312, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI,

¶27

…APPELLANTS

¶28

(BY SRI HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE.)

¶29

AND:

¶30

RUDRAPPA S/O. BASAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YANDIGERI-587206, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶31

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., RANI CHANNAMMA NAGAR, JAMKHANDI-587 301, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SMT PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R.1 – SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.)

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8842 MFA No. 100179 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2023

¶36

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.09.2022, PASSED BY COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, XIII MACT, BANAHATTI, IN MVC NO.425/2021, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶37

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Though these appeals are listed for orders, with consent of both sides, taken up for final disposal.

¶40

The appeal in MFA No.100179/2023 is filed by

¶41

the insurance company, challenging the judgment and award dated 13.09.2022, passed by the tribunal in MVC No.425/2021, seeking to reduce the compensation, whereas the appeal in MFA No.101124/2023 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶42

Heard the arguments and perused the material

¶43

placed before the Court.

¶44

The factum of accident, death of deceased in that accident and coverage of insurance are not in dispute in this case.

¶45

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8842 MFA No. 100179 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2023

¶46

In the present case the tribunal has awarded a

¶47

total compensation of Rs.35,23,688/- by considering the income of the deceased as Rs.31,886/- per month. The deceased is an ex-serviceman and attender working in a co-operative society. Ex.P.8 is the discharge service report card of the deceased and Ex.P.9 is the bank passbook and Ex.P.11 is the bank account statement, by which it is proved that the deceased was receiving salary of Rs.17,485/- by which the monthly earning of the deceased is Rs.17,485/- from pension and Rs.11,428/- from salary by society, which comes to Rs.28,913/- per month. Therefore, the tribunal has committed an error in taking the income as Rs.31,886/- per month. Therefore, the income is to be taken as Rs.28,913/- per month.

¶48

The deceased was a bachelor, aged 23 years old. The learned counsel for insurance company submitted that 40% of the income only is to be added towards loss of future prospects in life but not 50%. This submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for the reason that

¶49

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8842 MFA No. 100179 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2023

¶50

the deceased was ex-serviceman and pensioner. Further the deceased was working as attender in the co-operative society. The deceased being an ex-serviceman aged 23 years old certainly has future prospects in life and the pension is also being revised periodically. The deceased was working as attender in the society having fixed salary.

¶51

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, has laid down the law that 50% of the income is to be added towards loss of future prospects in life where the

¶52

deceased is having job in permanent nature on fixed salary. In the present case the deceased is a pensioner and the pension is being revised periodically and also was in a permanent nature of job being attender in a co-operative society. Therefore, 50% of the income is to be added towards loss of future prospects in life. Therefore the submission made by the learned counsel for insurance

¶53

company to add only 40% of income is hereby rejected.

¶54

- 6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8842 MFA No. 100179 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2023

¶55

The deceased was aged 23 years old.

¶56

Therefore, the appropriate applicable multiplier is 18. The deceased was a bachelor. Hence 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Therefore loss of dependency is re-assessed and quantified as Rs.46,83,906/- (Rs.28,913 + 50% minus 50% x 12 x 18). The same is awarded under the said head.

¶57

The claimants are father and mother. Therefore, in addition to that, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited v. Nanu Ram & Others, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 and in the case of Pranay Sethi supra , the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/each under the head ‘loss of consortium’, along with 10% escalation. Accordingly, Rs.88,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2 + 10%) is awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium including loss of love and affection’.

¶58

Further, a compensation of Rs.15,000/- each is

¶59

awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral and

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8842 MFA No. 100179 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2023

¶62

transportation’ respectively, along with 10% escalation. Therefore, Rs.33,000/- (Rs.15,000 x 2 + 10%) is awarded under the said heads.

¶63

Thus, in all the claimants are entitled for total

¶64

compensation as under:

¶65

Sl.	Heads.	Amount in
No.		(Rs.)
1.	Towards loss of dependency (Rs.28,913 + 50% minus 50% x 12 x 18)	46,83,906
2.	Towards loss of consortium (Rs.40,000 x 2+10%)	88,000
3.	Towards transportation of dead body & funeral expenses and loss of estate. (Rs.15,000 x 2 + 10%)	33,000
	Total:	48,04,906

¶66

Therefore, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.48,04,906/- as against Rs.35,23,688/awarded by the tribunal, which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The insurance company shall deposit the

¶67

¶68

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8842 MFA No. 100179 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2023

¶69

compensation amount along with interest within eight

¶70

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶71

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

i. The appeal in MFA No.100179/2023 filed by the insurance company is hereby dismissed.

¶74

ii. The appeal in MFA No.101124/2023 filed by the claimants is hereby allowed in part.

¶75

iii. The impugned judgment and award dated 13.09.2022, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, XIII MACT, Banahatti, in MVC No.425/2021 is modified.

¶76

iv. The claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.48,04,906/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against Rs.35,23,688/awarded by the tribunal.

¶77

¶78

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8842 MFA No. 100179 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 101124 of 2023

¶79

v. The claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 98 days in filing the appeal.

¶80

vi. The insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount along with interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶81

vii. The remaining observations and findings made by the Tribunal in the aforesaid impugned judgment and award are kept intact.

¶82

viii. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the tribunal.

¶83

ix. No order as to costs.

¶84

x. Draw award accordingly.

¶85

MRK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11 CT-ASC

¶86

SD/JUDGE

The Branch Manager v. Sri. Hanamant S/O Balappa Mannikeri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Sri. Hanamant S/O Balappa Mannikeri

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

Baramappa @ Bheemappa S/O. Basappa Tarakari Vs Rangayya S/O. Doddarangappa

Parvatewwa W/O Bheemappa Kariaakaladavar Vs Dillappa S/O Ningappa Badapanahalli

National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Shashikala Annasaheb Jolle

Hanamant S/O. Balappa Mannikeri Vs Rudrappa S/O. Basappa Angadi

The Manager Vs I. Sirivallappa @ Sirimalappa

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs K Sharadamma@Sharada D/O Obalappa