Dismissed

The Branch Manager, v. Adigouda S/O Late Hanumanagouda

Karnataka HC29 Aug 2023MFA/100631/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An insurance company appealed a motor accident compensation award for the death of a 7-year-old boy. The High Court found the quantum just and proper as per Supreme Court precedent, dismissing the appeal against the Rs. 5 lakh award with interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and award dated 18.08.2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II are upheld and appeal dismissed.

The Branch Manager, Vs Adigouda S/O Late Hanumanagouda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9645 MFA No. 100631 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100631/2015(MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, BELLARY, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS, DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶12

ADIGOUDA, S/O. LATE HANUMANAGOUDA, AGE:37 YEARS, R/O:MUSTAGATTI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK.

¶13

SMT. BHUVANESHWARI, W/O. ADIGOUDA, AGE:30 YEARS, R/O: MUSTAGATTI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK.

¶14

LOKESH S/O. SUNKAPPA, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: DAMMUR VILLAGE,

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9645 MFA No. 100631 of 2015

¶16

BALLARI TALUK.

¶17

G. SHIVKUMAR S/O. DODDA ERANNA, AGE: 35 YEARS, R/O: WARD NO. 3, NEAR SUNKALAMMA TEMPLE, MUSTAGATTI VILLAGE, BALLARI.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI B. C. JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH; R4 IS SERVED)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR

¶21

VEHICLE ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.08.2014 PASSED BY BEFORE THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – II BELLARI IN MVC NO.518/2013 WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE

¶23

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9645 MFA No. 100631 of 2015

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The appeal filed by the Insurance Company under

¶27

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 18.08.2014 passed in M.V.C. No.518/2013 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Bellary, (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶28

The factum of the case is not in dispute.

¶29

Heard on both sides and perused the records.

¶30

In the present case, it is undisputed fact that 7 years old boy died in the road traffic accident. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimants who are parents of the deceased boy.

¶31

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted

¶32

that though the Tribunal has held income of Rs.30,000/per annum but has not deducted income towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, the amount granted is on

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9645 MFA No. 100631 of 2015

¶34

higher side. Hence, prays to reduce the quantum of compensation.

¶35

The Tribunal by following principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others¹ and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶36

In case of death of minor children, what would be the appropriate income for granting compensation is explained at Paragraph No.39 in the said judgment in Kishan Gopal (Supra).

¶37

The Tribunal has taken notional income of Rs.30,000/per annum and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal is as per judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishan Gopal case (Supra) and it is found to be just and proper and

¶38

1 (2014) 1 SCC 244

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:9645 MFA No. 100631 of 2015

¶40

adequate. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The appeal stands dismissed.

¶43

SD/JUDGE

¶44

SSP List No.: 4 Sl No.: 10

The Branch Manager, v. Adigouda S/O Late Hanumanagouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager, v. Adigouda S/O Late Hanumanagouda

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

Ratnaprabha Basappa Gajare Vs Dhondiram Krishna Patil

Mahammadjafar Vs Ibrahimsab

The Divisional Manager Vs Ratna W/O Sangappa Neeraloti

Subham Adoptive Father Kalagouda Mudappagol @ Pati Vs Laxmibai W/O Amasidda Bajantri

Subham Adoptive Father Kalagouda Mudappagol @ Pati Vs Laxmibai W/O Amasidda Bajantri

Shankaragouda S/O Rudragouda Patil Vs Somanagouda S/O Rudragouda Patil