Partly allowed

Pushpa B L v. Reliance GlC Ltd.

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2024MFA/1436/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the claimants' appeal in part and dismissed the insurer's appeal. It set aside the 10% negligence attribution, determined notional income at Rs. 11,000 with 40% future prospects, and enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 27,72,900/-. Medical expenses were affirmed.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation to Rs. 27,72,900/- with 6% interest from date of petition till realization.

Pushpa B L Vs Reliance GlC Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49823 MFA No. 1436 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1054 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1436 OF 2020

¶6

C/W

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1054 OF 2020

¶8

(MV-D)

¶9

IN MFA No. 1436/2020:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

PUSHPA B L W/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶12

MASTER LOKESH B.M S/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS

¶13

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

¶14

KUM, SHALINI B.M D/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS

¶15

R-1 RO R-3 ARE R/AT BASETTIHALLI, SHIDLGHATTA TALUK,

¶16

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105.

¶17

(THE 2^ND AND 3^RD APPELLANTS BEING MINOR REPT. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 1^ST APPELLANT HEREIN)

¶18

BAYYAPPA

¶19

S/O LATE MADDIREDDY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT JANGALAHALLI,

¶20

- 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49823 MFA No. 1436 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1054 of 2020

¶21

PAPATHIMMANAHALLI, CHINTHAMANI,

¶22

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563159.

¶23

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O MUTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT BASETTIHALLI, SHIDLGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105.

¶24

…APPELLANTS

¶25

(BY SRI. T. VIJAY KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

RELIANCE GIC LTD., BY ITS MANAGER NO.28, CENTINARY BUILDING, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NEAR CITI BANK, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶28

NU SRINIVAS S/O NS UNNIKRISHANA MAJOR, R/O NO.1, SRI LAKSHMI NIVAS, 7TH CROSS, JANATHA COLONY, SHETTYHALLI, BENGALURU-560015.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. ASHOK.N.PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

¶31

VIDE ORDER DATED:10.03.2022, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶32

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.09.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1216/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49823 MFA No. 1436 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1054 of 2020

¶34

MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-4), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶35

IN MFA NO. 1054/2020:

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. REP. BY ITS MANAGER

¶38

...APPELLANT

¶39

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

PUSHPA B L S/O LATE MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O BASETTIHALLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶42

MASTER LIKESH B M S/O LATE MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS,

¶43

KUM. SHALINI B M D/O LATE MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, MINOR,

¶44

R-2 AND R-3 ARE MINORS

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:49823 MFA No. 1436 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1054 of 2020

¶47

REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.PUSHPA BL, W/O LATE MANJUNATHA, AGED 26 YEARS,

¶48

BOTH ARE R/O BASETTIHALLI, SHIUDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶49

BAYAPPA S/O LATE MADDIREDDY, AGED 76 YEARS, R/O JANGALAHALLI, PAPATHIMMANAHALLI, CHINTHAMANI,

¶50

CHIKKABALLAPUR-563159.

¶51

SMT MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O MUTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O BASETTIHALLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562105/

¶52

N U SRINIVAS S/O N S UNNIKRISHNA, NO.1, SRI LAKSHMI NIVAS, 7TH CROSS, JANATHA COLONY, SHETTYHALLI, BANGALORE-560015.

¶53

...RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SRI. T. VIJAY KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-5; VIDE ORDER DATED:17.09.2024, NOTICE TO R-6 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶55

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.09.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1216/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE

¶56

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49823 MFA No. 1436 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1054 of 2020

¶57

MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSE, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSTAION OF RS.25,23,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OFF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶58

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

¶59

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶60

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶61

In respect of an accident which occurred on 06.10.2017, Manjunath, a 32 year old was killed.

¶62

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,23,000/and while awarding the said compensation the Tribunal has attributed negligence on the deceased to the extent of 10% on Manjunath and has reduced the compensation proportionately.

¶63

The insurer is in appeal questioning the attribution of just 10% negligence on the deceased, while the claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶64

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:49823 MFA No. 1436 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1054 of 2020

¶65

The Tribunal has attributed negligence at 10% on the deceased on the ground that he was standing on the footboard. It is to be stated here that the police after investigation have laid a chargesheet against the driver of the bus and this by itself indicates that the deceased fell on the footboard because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver. In such a case, even assuming that the deceased was standing on the footboard, the Tribunal could not have attributed negligence to the extent of 10% on the deceased, more so, when there was no evidence of any of the co-passenger or driver as to the contribution of deceased to his fall and his subsequent death. Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal is set aside.

¶66

As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has adopted the notional income at Rs.10,000/-, since there was no evidence to that effect. As the Karnataka State Legal Services

¶67

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:49823 MFA No. 1436 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1054 of 2020

¶69

Authority has determined the notional income as Rs.11,000/- for the accident of the year 2017, it would be appropriate to determine the notional income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/-.

¶70

Since the deceased was aged 32 years, 40% requires to be added to the monthly income towards future prospects, which would result in the income to be Rs.15,400/-. If 1/4^th is deducted towards personal expenses, his monthly income for determining loss of dependency would be Rs.11,550/-.

¶71

As the deceased was aged 32 years, a multiplier of ‘16’ would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.22,17,600/- (Rs.11,550/- x 12 x ‘16’) towards ‘loss of dependency’.

¶72

The claimants being the wife, children and parents of deceased, they would each be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards ‘loss of love and affection’ i.e.,

¶73

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:49823 MFA No. 1436 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1054 of 2020

¶74

in all Rs.2,42,000/- and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under ‘miscellaneous expenses’.

¶75

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,77,000/- towards ‘medical expenses’. The same being based on documentary evidence is just and proper and is accordingly affirmed.

¶76

Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled for compensation of Rs.27,72,900/- as against Rs.25,23,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶77

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

¶78

The apportionment of the compensation amount shall be in terms of the Award of the Tribunal.

¶79

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:49823 MFA No. 1436 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1054 of 2020

¶80

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

¶81

The appeal filed by claimants is, accordingly, allowed in part and the appeal filed by insurer is

¶82

dismissed.

¶83

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶84

HNM

¶85

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Pushpa B L v. Reliance GlC Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa B L v. Reliance GlC Ltd.

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

Kalegowda Vs Javaraiah

M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Vs Kiran Kumar

Shabana Vs M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt Khateeja Vs B Dayananda

Syed Usman Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

The Divisional Manager Vs Nanjesh