Partly allowed

The Branch Manager v. Smt. Mahadevi

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024MFA/2309/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross-appeals by insurer and claimants against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award for a fatal 2016 road accident. The High Court affirmed the negligence finding against the insured vehicle's driver, reassessed compensation at a notional income of Rs.9,500 plus 25% future prospects with 1/4 deduction, and modified the award to Rs.17,16,036 with 6% interest, allowing both appeals in part.

What did the court decide?

Compensation modified to Rs.17,16,036 with 6% interest; insurer directed to deposit within eight weeks; apportionment as per Tribunal's ratio.

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Mahadevi — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:44549 MFA No. 2309 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 5653 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2309 OF 2020

¶7

C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5653 OF 2021(MV-D)

¶9

IN MFA NO.2309/2020:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE BRANCH MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GIC. LTD. KUNDAPURA BRANCH

¶12

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

¶13

ST. PHILIP BUILDING VADERHOBLI, KUNDAPURA NOW REP. BY ITS LEGAL OFFICER IFFCO TOKIO GIC. LTD. CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER SRI SHANTHI TOWERS 5^TH FLOOR, NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURBANAGAR BENGALURU-560 043.

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. LATE RACHA MANJAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶18

KUM. REVATHI D/O. LATE RACHA MANJAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44549 MFA No. 2309 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 5653 of 2021

¶20

KUM. RESHMA D/O. LATE RACHA MANJAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶21

KUM. RANJITHA D/O. LATE RACHA MANJAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶22

KUM. RAKSHITHA D/O. LATE RACHA MANJAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS

¶23

MASTER KARTIK S/O. LATE RACHA MANJAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS

¶24

SINCE RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 ARE MINORS WILL BE REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND N/G i.e., RESPONDENT NO.1-SMT. MAHADEVI.

¶25

ALL ARE R/AT ALIVEKODI SHIROOR POST AND VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶26

NAVEENA G. S/O. GANGADARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O. #77, IMMADAGONDANA HALLI MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-6; VIDE ORDER DATED 29/10/2024, NOTICE TO R-7 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶29

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1205/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.18,86,328/WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44549 MFA No. 2309 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 5653 of 2021

¶31

IN MFA NO.5653/2021:

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. LATE RACHA MANJAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶34

KUM. REVATHI D/O. LATE RACHA MANJAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶35

KUM. RESHMA D/O. LATE RACHA MANJAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶36

KUM. RANJITHA D/O. LATE RACHA MANJAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶37

KUM. RAKSHITHA D/O. LATE RACHA MANJAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS

¶38

MASTER KARTIK S/O. LATE RACHA MANJAPPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS

¶39

APPELLANT NOS.5 AND 6 ARE MINORS

¶40

THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY MOTHER GUARDIAN i.e., APPELLANT NO.1-SMT. MAHADEVI

¶41

(SINCE THE APPELLANT NO.4 IS ALREADY ATTEND MAJORITY SUBSEQUENT THE FILING OF THE MVC BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND HENCE SHE HERSELF HAS BEEN REPRESENTED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT)

¶42

ALL ARE R/AT ALIVEKODI, SHIROOR POST AND VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶43

...APPELLANTS

¶44

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶45

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44549 MFA No. 2309 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 5653 of 2021

¶46

AND:

¶47

SRI NAVEENA G. S/O. GANGADARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O.#77, IMMDAGONDANA HALLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶48

IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE: KUNDAPURA ST. PHILIP BUILDING VADERHOBLI KUNDAPURA – 576 201 REP. BY IS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶49

...RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI VINAY JADAV H., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶51

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1205/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶52

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

¶53

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶54

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44549 MFA No. 2309 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 5653 of 2021

¶55

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶56

Both the insurer and the claimants are in appeal.

¶57

The claimants, being dissatisfied with the

¶58

compensation of Rs.18,86,328/- awarded by the Tribunal, are in appeal.

¶59

The insurer has preferred the appeal questioning the negligence attributed to the driver of the insured vehicle as well as on the ground that the quantum of compensation is exorbitant.

¶60

The occurrence of the accident on 24.07.2016 in which the victim died is not in dispute.

¶61

The Tribunal, on assessment of the evidence, has awarded the following compensation and attributed negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle viz ., the tempo trax and fastened the liability to satisfy the

¶62

compensation on its insurer :

¶63

Sl. No.	Nature of Heads	Award by the Tribunal (In Rs.)
1.	Loss of dependency	13,16,328/-

¶64

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44549 MFA No. 2309 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 5653 of 2021

¶65

Sl. No.	Nature of Heads	Award by the Tribunal (In Rs.)
	(Rs.9,000/- + 25% - 1/4^thx 12 x ‘13’)
2.	Loss of spousal consortium to claimant No.1	40,000/-
3.	Loss of spousal consortium to claimant Nos.2 to 6	2,00,000/-
4.	Loss of love and affection to claimant Nos.1 to 6	3,00,000/-
5.	Loss of estate	15,000/-
6.	Funeral, obsequies and transportation of dead body expenses	15,000/-
	Total :	18,86,328/-

¶66

The insurer contends that the Tribunal has erred in

¶67

holding that the driver of the tempo trax that it had insured was negligent and was the cause of the accident. It is sought to be argued that the deceased was traveling on a motorcycle with a tire and a bag of fish on the petrol tank and this was the reason for the accident, which has not even been noticed in the proper perspective by the Tribunal.

¶68

A perusal of the evidence of the driver of the offending vehicle that was insured indicates that the

¶69

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:44549 MFA No. 2309 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 5653 of 2021

¶70

accident occurred in the middle of the road. It is also admitted by the driver that when the accident occurred, the owner of the vehicle was also sitting in the vehicle. More importantly, he admits that immediately after the accident, neither he nor his owner gave a complaint to the Police alleging negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle.

¶71

If it is noticed that the Police, on the basis of a complaint lodged by a passerby, has investigated the matter and has ultimately laid a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, it will have to be held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the driver of the insured vehicle was responsible for the accident, more so when the driver did not choose to lodge a complaint alleging negligence on the part of the deceased. The finding, therefore, of the Tribunal that the driver of the insured vehicle was responsible for the accident cannot be found fault with.

¶72

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:44549 MFA No. 2309 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 5653 of 2021

¶73

As regards compensation, it is noticed that the

¶74

Tribunal has wrongly assessed the compensation and it will therefore have to be re-assessed.

¶75

The notional income of the deceased is taken as Rs.9,000/- per month, as there was no proof of his actual income. In such cases, a sum of Rs.9,500/- determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the accidents of the year 2016 and since the deceased was aged 47 years, future prospects of 25% [Rs.2,375/-] will have to be added (Rs.11,875/-). Out of the said income, 1/4^th ( Rs.2,969/-) would have to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the net income would be Rs.8,906/-. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.13,89,336/- [ Rs.8,906/- x 12 x ‘13’ ] towards loss of dependency .

¶76

The claimants are the wife and five children of the deceased. Each of them would therefore be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- i.e., Rs.2,90,400/- apart from a sum

¶77

of Rs.36,300/- under the conventional heads .

¶78

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:44549 MFA No. 2309 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 5653 of 2021

¶79

Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned

¶80

award, would be entitled to the following sums :

¶81

Sl. No.	Nature of Heads	Amount (In Rs.)
1.	Loss of Dependency [Rs.8,906/- x 12 x ‘13’]	13,89,336/-
2.	Loss of Consortium	2,90,400/-
3.	Conventional Heads	36,300/-
	Total :	17,16,036/-

¶82

Thus, the claimants, in modification of the award of the Tribunal, will be entitled compensation of Rs.17,16,036/- as against Rs.18,86,328/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶83

The apportionment, deposit and release of the enhanced compensation amount shall be made as per the ratio adopted by the Tribunal.

¶84

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded along with interest

¶85

NC: 2024:KHC:44549 MFA No. 2309 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 5653 of 2021

¶86

10 -

¶87

within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a

¶88

certified copy of this judgment.

¶89

The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to

¶90

the Tribunal for disbursal in terms of the award.

¶91

The appeals filed by the claimants and the insurer

¶92

are accordingly allowed in part.

¶93

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶94

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

The Branch Manager v. Smt. Mahadevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Smt. Mahadevi

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

The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Smt a Selvi

Mr. N. J. Kiran Vs Mrs. Chaitra

Sri Yashwanth D Vs Sri Rafiq Ulla

Sri Bettaswamy Vs Sri Gangaiah

Smt. Fakrumbi Vs the Tahasildar

Mr Syed Aleem Vs Sri Harry Karthik