Partly allowed

The Manager L and T Gic Ltd. v. Lakshman Puda Sutar

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024MFA/1034/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the insurance company's appeal but partly allowed the claimants' appeal, enhancing compensation from Rs. 10.37 lakhs to Rs. 14.70 lakhs based on the deceased's age and future prospects after a fatal road accident involving a lorry.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 14,70,800/-; appeal by Insurance Company dismissed; appeal by claimants allowed in part.

The Manager L and T Gic Ltd. Vs Lakshman Puda Sutar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:37963 MFA No. 1034 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2988 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1034 OF 2020 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2988 OF 2022 (MV)

¶7

IN MFA No. 1034/2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGER L & T GIC LTD SHUBHAM BUILDING, IST FLOOR MAGRATH ROAD, BENGALURU-560025 AT NOW REP BY LEGAL MANAGER HDFC ERGO GIC LTD 2ND FLOOR, NO.25/1 BUILDING NO.2, SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. …APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶13

LAKSHMAN PUDA SUTAR S/O PUDA SUTAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶14

SUTAR SAGARAGBAI S/O LATE M R SURESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶15

SUNIL LAXMAN SUTAR S/O LAXMAN SUTAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT KODALI VILLAGE AND POST UDAGIR TALUK, LATHOR DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA C/O B SHEKAR

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:37963 MFA No. 1034 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2988 of 2022

¶18

SRINIDHI NILAYA, 4TH CROSS NEAR DEVANOOR CHURCH, TUMAKURU.

¶19

BALAJI GOVIND SURYAVANSHI S/O GOVIND SURYAVANSHI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A NO.373, MIDC, KOPARKKHAIRANE HANUMAN TEMPLE, MAHARASTRA-400705

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.HEMANTH KUMAR K.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3: SRI. NARYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 01.08.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.1282/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE IIADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,37,000/WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF AMOUNT.

¶23

IN MFA NO. 2988/2022 BETWEEN:

¶24

LAKSHMAN PUNDA SUTAR S/O PUDA SUTAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶25

SUTAR SAGARABAI W/O LASKHMAN PUDA SUTAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶26

*3. SUNIL LAXMAN SUTAR S/O LAKSHMAN SUTAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT KODALI VILLAGE & POST UDAGIR TALUK, LATHOR DISTRICT MAHARASHTRA STATE

¶27

...APPELLANTS

¶28

(BY SRI. HEMANT KUMAR K .B.,ADVOCATE)

¶29

* Inserted vide chamber order dated: 03.04.2025

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37963 MFA No. 1034 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2988 of 2022

¶31

AND:

¶32

L & T GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD NOW MERGED WITH H.DF.C ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMTIED SHUBAM BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶33

BALAJI GOVIND SURAYAVANSHI S/O GOVIND SURYAVANSHI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO. 373, MIDC KOPARKKHAIRANE, HANUMAN TEMPLE NAVI MUMBAI, THANE MAHARASTRA 400705.

¶34

...RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. B.PRADEEP.,ADVOCATE FOR R1: SRI. NARYANA SWAMY, ADVCOATE FOR R2)

¶36

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.08.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.1282/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE IIADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶37

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

MFA No.1034/2020 is filed by the Insurance

¶41

Company, whereas MFA No.2988/2022 is filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short, ‘the Act’) being aggrieved by the judgment and

¶42

award dated 01.08.2019 passed by the II Additional

¶43

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37963 MFA No. 1034 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2988 of 2022

¶44

Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Tumakuru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.1282/2014. Since the challenge is to the same judgment, both the appeals are clubbed together, heard and common judgment is being passed.

¶45

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 18.07.2014 at about 5.45 a.m., when the deceased Vinod Lakshman Sutar was traveling as a codriver in a lorry bearing registration No.MH-43/Y-988 on Tumakuru – Sira highway, at that time, the driver of the lorry drove the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and met with an accident. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶46

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

¶47

Upon service of notice, the respondent No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The

¶48

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37963 MFA No. 1034 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2988 of 2022

¶49

respondent No.2, despite service of notice, did not appear

¶50

before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.

¶51

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove the case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1, and another witness as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited document namely Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,37,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.

¶52

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37963 MFA No. 1034 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2988 of 2022

¶53

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company raised the following contentions:

¶54

i) Firstly, the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Since the insured has violated the policy condition, the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the Insurance Company.

¶55

ii) Secondly, even assuming that the deceased was a co-driver, a co-driver is not covered under the policy. Only the driver of the offending vehicle is covered under the policy. Therefore, the Tribunal wrongly fastened liability on the Insurance Company, contrary to the materials available on record.

¶56

iii) Thirdly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, sought to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants.

¶57

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37963 MFA No. 1034 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2988 of 2022

¶58

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants raised the following counter-contentions:

¶59

i) Firstly, at the time of the accident the deceased was traveling in the lorry as a co-driver. Even all police records and evidence of PW1 speaks that the deceased was a co-driver. Under the policy – Ex.R1, the Insurance Company has collected extra premium for co-driver. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company

¶60

ii) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017

¶61

SC 5157], the claimants are entitled to addition of future prospects.

¶62

iii) Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL

¶63

INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ

¶64

2782] , each of the claimants is entitled to compensation

¶65

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:37963 MFA No. 1034 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2988 of 2022

¶66

of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶67

iv) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side. Hence, sought to allow the appeal filed by the claimants and to dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

¶68

Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle submits that the deceased was traveling in the lorry as a co-driver and he is an employee working under respondent No.4 herein.

¶69

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal and the original records.

¶70

It is not in dispute that Vinod Lakshman Sutar died in the road traffic accident occurred on 18.07.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶71

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:37963 MFA No. 1034 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2988 of 2022

¶72

The specific case of the claimants is that the deceased was traveling in the lorry as a co-driver, since the lorry was proceeding from Mumbai to Bengaluru. The claimants have taken a specific contention in the pleadings that the deceased was traveling as a co-driver in the lorry. Even in the cross-examination of PW1, respondents have not elicited any worthwhile information. Even before this Court, for the first time the owner of the offending vehicle appeared through counsel and contended that the deceased was traveling as a co-driver in the offending lorry. The Insurance Company has taken a specific contention that the deceased was travailing as a gratuitous passenger. Except taking that contention, they have not proved the same by producing necessary documents or adducing evidence. All the police records clearly shows that the deceased was traveling as a codriver. The offending vehicle was covered with valid insurance policy and the same is produced as Ex.R1. As per the policy, the additional premium has been collected

¶73

for legal liability of driver, conductor and cleaner.

¶74

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:37963 MFA No. 1034 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2988 of 2022

¶75

Therefore, it is very clear that the co-driver is also covered under the policy. The Tribunal has rightly held that Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

¶76

Re.quantum:

¶77

The Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income as Rs.9,000/- per month. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘PRANAY SETHI’ (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.12,600/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount, i.e., Rs.6,300/- has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘18’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.13,60,800/- (Rs.6,300* 12*18) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶78

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:37963 MFA No. 1034 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2988 of 2022

¶79

In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’.

¶80

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.1 and 2, parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’.

¶81

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

¶82

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	13,60,800
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of Filial consortium	80,000
Total	14,70,800

¶83

NC: 2024:KHC:37963 MFA No. 1034 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2988 of 2022

¶84

12 -

¶85

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶86

ORDER

¶87

(i) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA No.1034/2020 is dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No.2988/2022 is allowed in part.

¶88

(ii) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶89

(iii) The claimants are entitled to a total

¶90

compensation of Rs.14,70,800/- as against Rs.10,37,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶91

(iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶92

(vi) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount shall be made in accordance with the terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶93

NC: 2024:KHC:37963 MFA No. 1034 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 2988 of 2022

¶94

13 -

¶95

(vii) In view of the order dated 09.09.2024, passed by this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period of 165 days in filing the appeal.

¶96

(viii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶97

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶98

CM List No.: 1 Sl No.:54

The Manager L and T Gic Ltd. v. Lakshman Puda Sutar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager L and T Gic Ltd. v. Lakshman Puda Sutar

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

Mr Basavaraj Mankani @ Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Jagadeesh B. Mumal Vs N. Dayananda

Smt. Sharada @ Sharadamma Vs M/S. United India Ins. Co. Ltd.

Sathisha M S Vs Basavaraju

Sri Manjunatha Reddy Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Anand Shetty Vs a Dinesh Kumar