Partly allowed

The Divisional Manager, v. Jayalakshmamma

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2024MFA/1302/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the insurance appeal in part. It set aside the 50% apportionment of negligence against the deceased rider due to a rear-end collision. The court enhanced the compensation to Rs.14,16,552 by adopting Rs.9,500 monthly income, correcting age to 46 years, and calculating future prospects, directing the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed in part; negligence attributed to deceased set aside; compensation enhanced to Rs.14,16,552 with interest; insurer directed to deposit within two months.

The Divisional Manager, Vs Jayalakshmamma — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:44694 MFA No. 1302 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

MFA NO. 1302 OF 2020 C/W MFA CROB.NO. 21 OF 2024 (MV-D)

¶7

IN MFA No. 1302/2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BRANCH MANAGER, 3^RD FLOOR KVV SAMRAT, 217/A 3^RD MAIN, OUTER RING ROAD KASTURI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 043 NOW REP.BY ITS THE MANAGER UNIVERSAL SOMPO GIC LTD. UNIT NO.401, 4^TH FLOOR SANGAM COMPLEX, 127 ANDHERI-KURLA ROAD ANDHERI(EAST) MUMBAI-59 …APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶14

R C YOGESH S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶15

R C LATHA D/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATAIAH

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44694 MFA No. 1302 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2024

¶17

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶18

ALL ARE R/AT RAYAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR

¶19

SUMANTH N E S/O ESHWAR HALASAMANE P.O. MANDIKERE GRAMA CHIKKAMAGALORE-577 127

¶20

MUZAKEER S/O ABDUL KHADAR NO.165, 4^TH DIVISION CHAMPAKA NAGAR SAKALESHPUR HASSAN DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH B., ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; R4 SERVED)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1163/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, BENGALURU AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,35,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 50 PERCENT OF RS.16,70,000/- AS COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST AT 8 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶23

IN MFA.CROB NO. 21/2024

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE CHIKKAVENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶26

SRI. YOGESH R.C. S/O. LATE CHIKKAVENKATAIAH

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44694 MFA No. 1302 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2024

¶28

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶29

KUM. R. C. LATHA W/O. LATE CHIKKAVENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS ALL ARE R/OF RAYAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUKA-572 130 TUMKUR DISTRICT ...CROSS OBJECTORS

¶30

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH B., ADV.)

¶31

AND:

¶32

MR. SUMANTH. N. E. S/O. ESHWAR, (R-1 S AGED NOT KNOWN TO CROB-OBJECTORS) HALASAMANE P.O. MANDIKERE GRAMA CHIKKAMAGALORE-577 127

¶33

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BRANCH MANAGER, 3^RD FLOOR K.V.V. SAMRAT, NO. 217/A 3^RD MAIN, OUTER RING ROAD KASTHURI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 043

¶34

MR. MUZAKEER S/O. ABDUL KHADAR (AGE R-3 NOT KNOWN TO CROB-OBJECTOR) NO. 165, 4^TH DIVISION CHAMPAKA NAGAR SAKALESHPURA HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI.PRADEEP B., ADV. FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 6.11.2024;

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:44694 MFA No. 1302 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2024

¶38

¶39

NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT AND NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶40

THIS MFA.CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 22 OF THE CPC READ WITH SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1163/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURLU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶41

THIS MFA AND MFA CROB., COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶43

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶44

The insurer has filed this appeal questioning the attribution of negligence on the driver of the car that it had insured.

¶45

The claimants had also filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44694 MFA No. 1302 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2024

¶47

The evidence on record indicates that the accident

¶48

occurred when the car hit the motor cycle from behind, which resulted in serious injuries to the rider and resulted in his death.

¶49

It is also forthcoming from records that a charge sheet has been laid against the driver of the car. In view of the fact that the driver of the car rear-ended the motor cycle, it would obviously have to be held that the he was responsible for the accident completely. The attribution of negligence therefore on the rider of the motor cycle to the extent of 50% cannot be sustained and accordingly set aside.

¶50

As far as quantum is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the notional income at Rs.12,000/- per month only on the basis of the Xerox copy of an identity card which indicated that he was a registered mason. There is, however, no evidence to prove his actual income. In that view of the matter, the assessment of Rs.12,000/- per month would be

¶51

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44694 MFA No. 1302 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2024

¶52

incorrect and it would be appropriate to adopt a sum of Rs.9,500/- as determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the accident of the year 2016. The age of the deceased has been determined as 46 years on the basis of the Aadhar Card. Learned counsel for the claimants contends that the post mortem report indicated that he was aged 40 years and, therefore, his age should be taken as 40 years. Since there is documentary evidence indicating the date of birth recorded as 46 years, it would be appropriate to affirm the finding of the Tribunal as regards the age of the deceased.

¶53

Since the deceased was aged 46 years as on the date of the accident, future prospects of 25% requires to be added and 1/3^rd requires to deducted towards personal expenses. Then, towards ‘loss of dependency’, the claimants would be entitled to:

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:44694 MFA No. 1302 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2024

¶55

Rs.9,500/- + Rs.2,375/- (25%) = Rs.11,875/- - Rs.3,958/- (1/3^rd ) = Rs.7,917/- X 12 X 13 = Rs.12,35,052/-.

¶56

The claimants, being the wife and children of the deceased, would each be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/-, it would be Rs.1,45,200/- towards loss of love and affection and a further sum of Rs.36,300/- under the conventional heads.

¶57

Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.14,16,552/- as against a sum of Rs.8,35,000/awarded by the Tribunal along with the interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till its realization.

¶58

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

¶59

judgment.

¶60

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:44694 MFA No. 1302 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 21 of 2024

¶61

The apportionment of compensation shall be in terms

¶62

of the award of the Tribunal.

¶63

The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.

¶64

The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement.

¶65

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶66

GSR,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

The Divisional Manager, v. Jayalakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager, v. Jayalakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Bettaswamy Vs Sri Gangaiah

Smt. Fakrumbi Vs the Tahasildar

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Mahadevi

Sri Kyathappa S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Girish. G. v. Vs Nishara Public School

Mahadevi Vs Dinesh B N