Partly allowed

The Legal Manager v. Mr Krishnappa Poojary

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2023MFA/3943/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a combined miscellaneous first appeal, the High Court of Karnataka held that medical evidence proved death resulted from abdominal injuries sustained in an accident. The Insurance Company's appeal to set aside compensation was dismissed. The claimants' appeal for enhancement was partly allowed, with the compensation awarded increased to Rs.20,74,400/-.

What did the court decide?

Claimants' appeal allowed in part for enhancement of compensation to Rs.20,74,400/-; Insurer's appeal dismissed; original award modified.

The Legal Manager Vs Mr Krishnappa Poojary — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 3943 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1818 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3943 OF 2015(MV-D)

¶7

C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1818 OF 2015(MV-D)

¶9

IN M.F.A.No.3943/2015

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE LEGAL MANAGER, SHRIRAM GIC LTD., NO.E8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITHAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN – 302 022. NOW REP. BY THE LEGAL MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INS.CO.LTD., NO.5/4, 3^RD FLOOR, S.V.ARCADE, BELEKALHALLI MAIN ROAD, OPP. BANNERGHATTA ROAD, LIMB POST, BANGALORE – 76.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

MR. KRISHNAPPA POOJARY, S/O LATE AITHU POOJARY,

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 3943 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1818 of 2015

¶19

NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶20

KUSUMA, W/O KRISHNAPPA POOJARY, NOW AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT GOLITHADY HOUSE, VITTAL KASBA VILLAGE AND VITAL POST, BANTWALA TALUK, D.K. – 574 153.

¶21

MR. DHARANEDRA, S/O CHANDRARAJ INDRA, NOW AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT H.NO.26, PHERMAN HOUSE, NADA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY, D.K.- 574 153.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.335/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, MANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,38,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

¶25

IN M.F.A.No.1818/2015

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

MR. KRISHNAPPA POOJARY, S/O LATE AITHU POOJARY,

¶28

NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶29

¶30

MFA No. 3943 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1818 of 2015

¶31

SINCE DEAD BY LR. APPELLANT NO.2 MRS.KUSUMA

¶32

MRS.KUSUMA, W/O KRISHNAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT GOLITHADY HOUSE, VITTAL KASBA VILLAGE AND VITAL POST, BANTWALA TALUK, D.K. – 574 153.

¶33

…APPELLANTS

¶34

(BY SRI. G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

MR. DHARANEDRA, S/O CHANDRA RAJA INDRA, NOW AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT H.NO.26, PHERMAN HOUSE, NADA VILLAGE,

¶37

BELTHANGADY, D.K.- 574 212.

¶38

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., E8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITHAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN – 302 022. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 01.06.2015)

¶41

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC

¶42

¶43

MFA No. 3943 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1818 of 2015

¶44

NO.335/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, MANGALURU, SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶45

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

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

MFA 3943/2015 is filed by the Insurance Company praying to set aside the impugned Judgment and Award dated 01.12.2014 in MVC No.335/2013 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & Member, MACT, Mangaluru, on the ground that there is no nexus between the injuries caused and death of the deceased.

¶48

MFA 1818/2015 is filed by the claimants in the said MVC No.335/2013, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶49

Though both the appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, they are taken up for final disposal.

¶50

Heard learned counsel from both side and perused the records.

¶51

¶52

MFA No. 3943 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1818 of 2015

¶53

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that there is no nexus between the injuries and cause of death. Therefore, the compensation awarded on account of death of the deceased in the accident is not proper. He further submitted that there is 21 days' difference between the date of accident and date of death. For some other reason death has occurred and not due to accidental injuries. Therefore, he prays for setting aside of the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal by allowing the appeal. He further submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded under the various heads is proper and justified and hence, prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants.

¶54

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the deceased died in the hospital because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The deceased was continuously taking treatment from the moment he suffered accident and further submitted that Ex.P2 - post-mortem report also reveals that death of deceased was due to abdominal injuries. Therefore, the medical evidence on record proves that due to accidental injuries the deceased died. Further the

¶55

¶56

MFA No. 3943 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1818 of 2015

¶57

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate the hence prays for enhancement of compensation and requests to dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

¶58

In the present case, the accident was caused on 15.12.2012. In the accident, the deceased had sustained grievous injuries to the abdomen. This injury to abdomen is not disputed. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Govt. Hospital at Vittala, then to Adarsha Hospital, Puttur, then referred to Tejaswini Hospital and then to City Hospital, Mangaluru. While the deceased was in the hospital, during treatment period, he died on 06.01.2013. Therefore, after 21 days from the date of accident, the deceased died in the hospital while taking treatment. Ex.P7, the discharge summary would prove that the deceased had sustained injury to abdomen and necessary treatment was given to the deceased. But the deceased without responding to the treatment, died in the hospital. Ex.P2 the Post-mortem report in which the doctor has opined with regard to the cause of death as due to complications of abdominal injury as a result of blunt force trauma. It is not disputed that the deceased

¶59

¶60

MFA No. 3943 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1818 of 2015

¶61

suffered grievous injury to the abdomen. During post-mortem, the doctor noticed and reported in the injury column (IV) regarding injury caused to the abdomen which reads as follows:

¶62

"(2) Peritoneum: Greater omentum is contused and sutured to anterior abdominal wall. 300 ml of blood tinged fluid is present in the abdominal cavity.

¶63

(7) Liver: Wt.2960 gms. Multiple transcapsular lacerations are present on the outer aspect of right lobe."

¶64

Therefore, the above said medical record proves that due

¶65

to the injury sustained to the abdomen, the liver was extensively damaged and deceased died. There is extensive damage caused to the liver due to the trauma occurred to the abdomen. Further, considering the time gap between the date of accident and date of death correspondingly considering the injury to the abdomen, all prove that the deceased died due to the accidental injuries. Therefore, I do not find any force in the submission made by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal is correct in holding that the deceased died due to accidental injuries.

¶66

¶67

MFA No. 3943 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1818 of 2015

¶68

Now, with regard to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has granted compensation under various heads as follows:

¶69

Heads	Amount (in Rupees)
Loss of dependency	6,48,000/-
Funeral expenses	10,000/-
Medical expenses	1,50,000/-
Transportation of dead body	10,000/-
Loss of love and affection	10,000/-
Loss of estate	10,000/-
Total	8,38,000/-

¶70

It is stated that deceased was 24 years old and working as a Civil Supervisor in the Company named "Vinyas Constructions", Puttur, he was receiving salary of Rs.12,000/per month. Ex.P8 is the salary certificate which shows that deceased was working in Vinyas Constructions, Puttur, by receiving salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. Ex.P12 is the ITI marks card it proves that deceased had completed his ITI training Course. PW-2 is the owner of Vinyas Constructions, Puttur, who has given evidence before the Tribunal stating that deceased was working under his company and he used to pay

¶71

¶72

MFA No. 3943 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1818 of 2015

¶73

the salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore it is proved that deceased was receiving a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month by working as a Civil Supervisor. It is the contention of the Insurance Company that in fact, bank pass book is not produced and therefore the said monthly salary is not a believable one and therefore learned counsel requests to adopt the notional income. But this submission cannot be accepted for the reason that it is proved that deceased is a qualified person who has completed the ITI Course which is a technical Course. When the avocation of the deceased and his educational qualification is proved, then the salary certificate and submission made by PW-2 can also be considered as a proved one. Therefore it is proved that deceased was receiving a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month.

¶74

The Tribunal has not added income towards "loss of future prospects in life". The same has to be added as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS

¶75

reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. Accordingly, 40% of income has to be added towards loss of income. The deceased was 24

¶76

10 -

¶77

MFA No. 3943 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1818 of 2015

¶78

years old, hence, multiplier of 18 is adopted. The deceased was a bachelor. Therefore 50% of his income has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Hence, the loss of dependency would arrive at Rs.18,14,400/- (12000 + 4800 (40% of 12000) x 50/100 x 18 x 12). The medical expenses granted by the Tribunal is as per actual bills produced. Therefore the same is kept intact. Further, compensation of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards "transportation of dead body, funeral expenses". Another sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head "loss of estate".

¶79

There are two legal dependents. Hence, compensation of Rs.40,000/- each is granted under the head "loss of consortium" which includes loss of love and affection.

¶80

Hence, the claimants are entitled to grant of total

¶81

compensation as under:

¶82

Heads	Amount (in Rupees)
Loss of dependency	18,14,400/-
Funeral expenses &	15,000/-
transportation of dead body
Medical expenses	1,50,000/-

¶83

11 -

¶84

MFA No. 3943 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1818 of 2015

¶85

Loss of love and affection and	80,000/-
loss of consortium
Loss of estate	15,000/-
Total	20,74,400/-

¶86

Therefore, the claimants are awarded a total

¶87

compensation of Rs.20,74,400/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.8,38,000/-. Hence, the claimants

¶88

are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.12,36,400/- (Rs.20,74,400 – Rs.8,38,000), along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit.

¶89

20. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶90

ORDER

¶91

i. The appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No.1818/2015 is allowed in part .

¶92

ii. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA

¶93

No.3943/2015 is hereby dismissed.

¶94

iii. The impugned judgment and award dated 01.12.2014, passed in MVC No.335/2013, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge & Member, MACT,

¶95

12 -

¶96

MFA No. 3943 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 1818 of 2015

¶97

Mangaluru, is modified to an extent that the appellants – claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.12,36,400/(Rupees

¶98

Twelve Lakhs Thirtysix Thousand Four Hundred Only), along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶99

iv. The amount in deposit in MFA No.3943/2015 shall be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶100

v. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶101

vi. Draw award accordingly.

¶102

Sd/JUDGE

¶103

sac*

The Legal Manager v. Mr Krishnappa Poojary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Legal Manager v. Mr Krishnappa Poojary

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

Asif Khan Vs Mahadeva

Syed Salman Vs Rajegowda

Chief Executive Officer Vs Sri. K. Adinarayana

Smt. Thereshiya Sandhya Vs Sri.Nagesh G K

Mr Srinivas Vs Magma Hdi General

Avinash B. R. Vs Karthik