Partly allowed

The Branch Manager v. Manjamma

Karnataka HC3 Oct 2023MFA/8704/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Future General Insurance appealed a compensation award following a motor vehicle accident death. The High Court reduced the compensation amount by recalculating monetary heads based on corrected age and appellate precedents, directing the insurer to pay the reduced figure to claimants.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 30,88,764/- is reduced to Rs. 24,16,616/- and the Appellant/Insurer is directed to pay the reduced amount within four weeks.

The Branch Manager Vs Manjamma — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:35575-DB MFA No. 8704 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8704 OF 2022 (MV-D)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE BRANCH MANAGER FUTURE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.31, 3^RD FLOOR, ABOVE CROMA SHOWROOM SHRAVANEE KRISHNA MANSION, 100 FEET ROAD, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 011.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. B. C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by D HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

MANJAMMA

¶17

W/O LATE RANGAIAH NOW AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶18

BHAGYAMMA A. R. D/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶19

CHAITHRA A R D/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER 1^ST PETITONER

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:35575-DB MFA No. 8704 of 2022

¶21

RAGHU A. R. S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN / MOTHER 1^ST PETITONER

¶22

ALL ARE R/O AJJAGONDANAHALLI, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶23

N. MANJUNATHA HEAD MASTER, JAIN PUBLIC SCHOOL, KAVALAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, NOW R/AT ANJANI EXTENSION, CHINTHAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNAIAH A. N., ADV.FOR R1 & R2; R3 & R4 ARE MINOR, REP. BY R1; SRI R.KIRAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶26

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.08.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.870/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, TUMAKURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.30,88,764/WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION FROM RESPONDENTS.

¶27

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, UMESH M ADIGA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:35575-DB MFA No. 8704 of 2022

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This appeal is by the Insurer against the judgment and award passed by the 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short) dated 18.08.2022 challenging quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶32

We refer the parties as per their rank before the Tribunal.

¶33

It is the case of the claimants that on 19.06.2018 at about 3.30 pm, deceased Rangaiah was going on TVS moped bearing Reg.No.KA-06-EV-1897 from Sadananda Daba Service on Sira-Tumkur NH-48 Road. He met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of school van bearing Reg.No.KA-40-7356 by its driver, as a result of which, Rangaiah fell down and sustained severe injuries. He was shifted to District Government Hospital, Tumakuru and for higher treatment, he was shifted to NIMHANS and Siddaganga Hospital, Tumakuru from

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:35575-DB MFA No. 8704 of 2022

¶35

19.06.018 to 12.08.2018. He had taken treatment at Vinayaka Hospital, Tumakuru from 12.08.2018 to 20.09.2018. While taking follow up treatment at home on 17.01.2019, he succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident.

¶36

The claimant had spent more than Rs.20 Lakhs towards medical and incidental expenses. The deceased was working as a Geologist and identifying the water points for digging up bore-well. He was also rearing sheep and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The claimants are wife and children of deceased, who were depending upon his earnings. With these reasons, they prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.40 Lakhs.

¶37

The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their written statement. they have denied the contents of the claim petition. Respondent No.1 has stated that the said vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2 and in the event, if any compensation is awarded, same shall be recovered from Respondent No.2.

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:35575-DB MFA No. 8704 of 2022

¶39

Respondent No.2 admitted policy of insurance on offended vehicle. However, it has contended that accident had taken placed due to rash and negligent riding of TVS moped by deceased and its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of policy of insurance and also holding of valid and effective driving license by driver of the school van. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶40

From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal had framed necessary issues.

¶41

The claimants in support of their case had examined PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P297. The Respondents had examined RW-1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R3.

¶42

The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties and on appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, allowed the claim petition by impugned judgment and award dated 18.08.2022.

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:35575-DB MFA No. 8704 of 2022

¶44

The Tribunal held that the accident had taken

¶45

place due to rash and negligent driving of School van by its driver. The Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 51 years on the basis of Ex.P18, his earning as Rs.12,500/- per month; added 25% of his income towards future prospects, deducted 1/4^th towards personal expenses, applied multiplier as ‘13’, on the basis of age of the deceased and awarded following amount of

¶46

compensation:

¶47

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
1	Medical expenses	8,70,600
2	Food, attendant and conveyance charges	2,00,000
3	Loss of dependency	18,28,164
4	Loss of consortium	1,60,000
5	Loss of estate	15,000
6	Funeral expenses of deceased	15,000
	TOTAL	30,88,764

¶48

The same is challenged by the Insurer in the present appeal.

¶49

We have heard the arguments of the learned

¶50

Advocates for the appellant, as well as Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶51

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:35575-DB MFA No. 8704 of 2022

¶52

The learned advocate for the appellant, Shri.

¶53

B.C.Shivanne Gowda has submitted that age of the deceased is 51 years as per Ex.P18. However, the Tribunal has considered age of the deceased as below 50 years and added future prospects at the rate of 25% per annum, which is incorrect. As per Ex.P18, age of the deceased was 51 years. It is the document produced by the claimant and now he cannot dispute it. Therefore, age of the deceased must be taken as 52 years. Accordingly, future prospects has to be added only 10% and not 25% as awarded by the Tribunal. Suitable multiplier for the age group of 52 is ‘11’. The Tribunal has considered his age below 50 years, therefore, applied multiplier as ‘13’, which is incorrect. He has further submitted that compensation awarded under the other heads are on much higher side, which needs to be re-calculated and just, amount of compensation needs to be awarded.

¶54

The learned advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to

¶55

4 have submitted that the Tribunal has properly

¶56

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:35575-DB MFA No. 8704 of 2022

¶57

appreciated the evidence on record and awarded just amount of compensation. It does not call for any interference. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the appeal.

¶58

The learned advocate for Respondent No.5 Shri.R.Kiran has submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously held that Respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.2 being Insurer, shall pay the said amount of compensation and recover it from Respondent No.1. There is no violation of conditions of policy. Therefore, Respondent No.1 is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶59

From the above said discussion, the following point arises for our determination:

¶60

“Whether the Tribunal had awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation and needs interference by this Court”?

¶61

It is not in dispute that the accident had taken place between TVS moped and offended School Van and in the said accident, deceased Rangaiah had sustained

¶62

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:35575-DB MFA No. 8704 of 2022

¶63

severe injuries and he had taken treatment as an inpatient in different hospitals and succumbed to injuries on 17.01.2019. The Tribunal, on appreciating the evidence held that accident had taken placed due to rash and negligent driving of School Van by its driver. The said finding is not challenged by Respondent No.1; even the Insurer has not challenged the said finding in the present appeal. Therefore, there is no need to interfere in the said findings.

¶64

As rightly submitted by the learned advocate

¶65

for the appellant, the Tribunal has referred Ex.P18, i.e., copy of the ration card produced by the claimants, wherein the age of the deceased was mentioned as 51 years. The Tribunal had placed reliance on Ex.P12, i.e., post-mortem report and held that age of the deceased might be below 50 years. When, in a public document age of the deceased is mentioned as 51 years and that was not disputed by deceased himself during his life time, there was no need for the Tribunal to consider Ex.P12, to assess the age of

¶66

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:35575-DB MFA No. 8704 of 2022

¶67

deceased. It is also pertinent to note that the Tribunal did not accept the age mentioned in Ex.P18 and not assigned reasons to reject the age mentioned in Ex.P18, which is an error committed by the Tribunal.

¶68

As per Ex.P18, deceased had completed 51 years as on date of his death. From the date of issue of the said document, i.e., Ex.P18 to the date of the accident, deceased might be aged around 52 to 53 years. In view

¶69

of the change of age, percentage of addition towards future prospects shall also be reduced; similarly, the multiplier applied shall also to be changed multiplies applicable between age group of 51 to 55 is ‘11’. Therefore, compensation under the head ‘loss of

¶70

dependency’ shall be recalculated as under:

¶71

Income per month	Rs.12,500
Add 10% towards
future prospects	Rs.1,250
Total	Rs.13,750
Less 1/4^thtowards
personal expenses	Rs.3,437
Net income per month	Rs.10,313

¶72

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:35575-DB MFA No. 8704 of 2022

¶73

(Rs.10,313X12X11)= Rs.13,61,316/-.

¶74

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/-

¶75

towards food attendant charges and conveyance charges. the said amount is much higher side, which needs to be reduced. The Tribunal did not follow the law laid down in the case of PRANAY SETHI (referred supra) and SRIRAM

¶76

GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VS. BHAGATSINGH RAWAT¹ while awarding compensation under the ‘loss of consortium’ and other two conventional heads, which needs to be re-calculated.

¶77

For the aforesaid discussion, claimants are entitled for the following amount of compensation:

¶78

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
1	Medical expenses	8,70,600
2	Food, attendant and conveyance charges	1,00,000
3	Loss of dependency	13,61,316
4	Loss of consortium	48,400

¶79

1 Unreported judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2410-2412/2023 dated 27.03.2023

¶80

12 -

¶81

NC: 2023:KHC:35575-DB MFA No. 8704 of 2022

¶82

5	Loss of estate	18,150
6	Funeral expenses	18,150
	TOTAL	24,16,616

¶83

A sum of (Rs.30,88,764-Rs.24,16,616)=

¶84

Rs.6,72,148/- has to be reduced in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶85

The Tribunal has held that owner of the School Van had violated the terms and conditions of policy of insurance and without permit, he was plying the vehicle beyond the permitted area. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Insurer to pay the compensation and recover the same from the Insured/Owner of the School Van. The said finding is on the basis of the materials available on record, which is not in serious dispute and owner of the School Van did not file any appeal, challenging the said findings. Therefore, the Insurer is directed to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶86

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:35575-DB MFA No. 8704 of 2022

¶87

For the aforesaid discussion, we answer the

¶88

above said question partly in the affirmative and pass the following:

¶89

ORDER

¶90

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶91

ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.870 of 2019 dated

¶92

18.08.2022 is modified as under:

¶93

a) The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.24,16,616/(Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred and Sixteen only) as against Rs.30,88,764/- awarded by the Tribunal and compensation is reduced by Rs.6,72,148/(Rupees Six Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand One Hundred and Forty Eight only).

¶94

b) The Appellant/Insurer is directed to pay the above said amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this award.

¶95

c) The Appellant/Insurer is at liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the

¶96