Partly allowed

The Divisional Manager, v. Hanumavva W/O Lakshmappa Kadimani

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2024MFA/21821/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, reducing compensation from Rs. 2,80,000 to Rs. 80,000. The Court accepted evidence that the deceased was 97 years old and blind, thereby finding she was a dependent rather than an earner, and awarded loss of estate and incidental expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs. 2,80,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- with 6% p.a. interest.

The Divisional Manager, Vs Hanumavva W/O Lakshmappa… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7725 MFA No. 21821 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21821 OF 2012

¶8

(MV)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, A.M ARCADE, C.G. HOSPITAL ROAD, NEAR VIDYARTHI BHAVANA, DAVANAGERE, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, TP-HUB, II FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

HANUMAVVA W/O. LAKSHMAPPA KADIMANI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶16

DEVINDRAPA LAKSHMAPPA KADEMANI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶17

VIJAYA S/O. LAKSHMAPPA KADIMANI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRIL, R/O: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶18

HANUMANTHAPP S/O. LAKSHMAPPA KADIMANI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRIL, R/O: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7725 MFA No. 21821 of 2012

¶20

SRI. BASANAGOUD S/O. MALLESHAPPA HIREGOUDAR AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER AND OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG NO. KA-27/J-1718, R/O: CHOUDESHAWARI NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR FOR SRI. LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4; NOTICE TO R5 DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01-03-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.520/2007 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, RANEBENNUR, BY AWARDING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

In this appeal, the insurance company challenged the judgment and award dated 01.03.2012 passed in MVC No.520/2007 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Ranebennur (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

¶27

The appellant was the second respondent, respondent Nos.1 to 4 were the petitioners and respondent No.5 was the first respondent before the Tribunal. Hence, for the sake of convenience, rankings of

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7725 MFA No. 21821 of 2012

¶29

the parties shall be referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶30

Brief facts of the case are Holiyamma (the

¶31

deceased) is the mother-in-law of first petitioner and grandmother of petitioner Nos.2 to 4, on 25.01.2007 at 10.15 a.m. she met with an accident on Medleri Ranebennur road while crossing the road hit by a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/J-1718 causing her injuries. She was admitted to the Government Hospital, Ranebennur. In spite of treatment, she succumbed to death on 26.01.2007. The petitioners claiming that they are the dependents approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. That the deceased was aged 60 years, doing agriculture and earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. Claim was opposed by the respondents. The Tribunal after holding enquiry and hearing on both the sides, by the impugned judgment, awarded the compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- with 6%

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7725 MFA No. 21821 of 2012

¶33

interest. Challenging the same, the insurance company has filed this appeal on various grounds.

¶34

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel Sri G.N. Raichur appearing for appellant and learned counsel Sri G.N. Narasammanavar appearing for petitioners.

¶35

It is the contention of the learned counsel for insurance company that the deceased was aged 97 years, she was blind and totally depended on the petitioners. In spite of the same, the Tribunal considered the petitioners as dependants and assessed the compensation which is contrary to the evidence on record. Utmost, the petitioners may be entitled for loss of estate and accordingly he sought for modification of the impugned judgment and award.

¶36

Per contra , learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the age of the deceased was 60 years,

¶37

she was doing agriculture and earning more than Rs.6,000/- p.m. In spite of that, the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- p.m.

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7725 MFA No. 21821 of 2012

¶39

only and assessed the lesser compensation. The deceased

¶40

was not blind and not aged 97 years. The Tribunal is right

¶41

in assessing the dependency and in awarding compensation. He sought for enhancement of

¶42

compensation and dismissal of the appeal.

¶43

I gave anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on both the sides and perused the records.

¶44

There is no dispute with regard to the accident, cause of accident, death of the deceased on account of accidental injuries. It is pertinent to note that the deceased was aged and the petitioners are the daughterin-law and grandchildren. Before the Tribunal, third petitioner has stepped into the witness box and during the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that the deceased was aged 97 years and she was blind. This shows that a lady aged 97 years cannot work and do not get any income. Even assuming for the purpose of assessing compensation she was earning some money, having regard to her age, the petitioners being majors, the

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7725 MFA No. 21821 of 2012

¶46

deceased must have been the dependent on the petitioners and not the petitioners were the dependents on the deceased. Hence, utmost the petitioners being the daughter-in-law and grandchildren are entitled to claim incidental expenses and also loss of estate.

¶47

On perusal of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal without giving any reasons, directly come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning and petitioners were her dependants. As the material on record clearly point out that the age of the deceased was 97 years and it is hard to accept that she was an earning member. The accident is of the year 2007 and the notional income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.4,000/- p.m., if 50% of the said income is deducted towards personal expenses then it comes to Rs.2,000/- and if multiplier of 5 based on the age of the deceased is applied, the probable dependency comes to Rs.1,20,000/-. Out of this, if 25% is considered as loss of estate, the petitioners are only entitled for Rs.30,000/-.

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7725 MFA No. 21821 of 2012

¶49

¶50

Towards funeral expenses a sum of Rs.10,000/-

¶51

and towards loss of love and affection a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioners is to be considered. The total compensation comes to Rs.80,000/-. Compared to the Tribunal, award of Rs.2,80,000/- is on the higher side. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed. In the result, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶54

(ii) The judgment and award dated 01.03.2012 passed in MVC No.520/2007 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Ranebennur is modified.

¶55

(iii) The petitioners are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.80,000/- instead of Rs.2,80,000/- from the date of petition till the date of realization with interest at 6% p.a.

¶56

(iv) Rest of the award passed by the Tribunal is kept intact.

¶57

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7725 MFA No. 21821 of 2012

¶58

(v) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal along with records forthwith.

¶59

(vi) Insurance company is directed to deposit balance compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

NAA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38

The Divisional Manager, v. Hanumavva W/O Lakshmappa Kadimani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager, v. Hanumavva W/O Lakshmappa Kadimani

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

Siddvva W/O Kallolleppa Neelar, Vs the Divisional Controller N.W.K.R.T.C

Prema S/O. Srinivas Naik Vs M Shivanna S/O. Ninjappa

Irayya S/O Shivalingayya Mathpati Vs Dundappa S/O Basappa Kamatagi