Allowed

Geetha Manekar v. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2024MFA/3763/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Vehicle Accident appeal in part, holding the insurer liable to pay compensation despite the driver lacking a licence per Yallavva precedent. The court enhanced the award to Rs. 18,83,964 based on notional income calculations and standard multipliers, directing immediate deposit.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs. 18,83,964 with interest; insurer directed to deposit amount and recover from owner.

Geetha Manekar Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:48688 MFA No. 3763 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3763 OF 2020

¶6

(MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GEETHA MANEKAR W/O LATE VAIJANATH AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶9

HANAMANTH MANEKARA S/O SHARANAPPA AGE ABOUT 83 YEARS

¶10

SOVAMMA MANEKARA W/O HANAMANTHA MANEKARA AGE ABOUT 74 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDING AT SARASAMBA NAGALEGAON POST ALAND POST, GULBARGA DISTRICT.

¶14

(BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N R., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD T P HUB, 6^TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN BUILDING, HUDSON CIRCEL BANGALORE – 560001. BY MANAGER.

¶18

MD M/S GRENT A CAR NO 2, SHOPPING STREET KUMARA PARK WEST,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:48688 MFA No. 3763 of 2020

¶21

BANGALORE - 560020.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAMARAO., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; VIDE ORDER DATED:02.01.2024, NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELF SUFFICIENT)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.5224/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI A.C.M.M. AND XXIII A.S.C.J., MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

The claimants are in appeal challenging exoneration of

¶28

liability on the insurer, as well as seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶29

The occurrence of the accident is not in dispute.

¶30

The Tribunal has exonerated the insurer solely on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a driving licence. In other words, there was a breach of policy conditions.

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48688 MFA No. 3763 of 2020

¶32

In such cases, as per the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in Yallavva ’s¹ case, the insurer of the offending vehicle would have to pay the compensation and thereafter proceed to recover the same from its owner.

¶33

As a consequence, to this extent, the finding recorded of the Tribunal regarding liability is set aside and it is held that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and thereafter proceed to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶34

As far as compensation is concerned, in order to arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income of the deceased notionally at Rs.8,000/-.

¶35

In cases where there is no evidence to determine the actual income, it is appropriate to adopt the notional income as assessed by the Karnataka State Legal

¶36

1 New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Yallavva and another, ILR 2020 KAR 2239 .

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:48688 MFA No. 3763 of 2020

¶39

Services Authority, which, for the year 2016 would be Rs.9,500/-.

¶40

As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi² , as the deceased was aged about 33 years, 40% of the same (Rs.3,800/-) is required to be added to the said income as future prospects and the resultant income would be Rs.13,300/-.

¶41

Since the deceased was survived by wife and parents, out of the said sum, 1/3^rd of the same (Rs.4,433/-) would have to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The net income will be Rs.8,867/-.

¶42

As the deceased was aged 33 years, as per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma³ , a multiplier of ' 16 ’ would have to be applied.

¶43

2 National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶44

3 Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48688 MFA No. 3763 of 2020

¶46

Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a

¶47

sum of Rs.17,02,464/- (Rs.8,867/- x 12 x '16') towards

¶48

“ loss of dependency ” .

¶49

The claimants being the wife and parents, each of them would be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/towards “ loss of consortium ” i.e., in all Rs.1,45,200/- and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the “conventional heads” .

¶50

Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned

¶51

award, would be entitled to the following sums :

¶52

Sl. No.	Nature of Heads	Amount (In Rs.)
1.	Loss of Dependency	17,02,464/-
2.	Loss of Consortium	1,45,200/-
3.	Conventional Heads	36,300/-
	Total :	18,83,964/-

¶53

Thus, the claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.18,83,964/- as against Rs.15,03,700/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with

¶54

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48688 MFA No. 3763 of 2020

¶55

interest at the rate of six per cent per annum (as against 8%) from the date of petition till its realization, except for the delay period of 518 days in filing the appeal.

¶56

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

¶57

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded along with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and thereafter, proceed to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶58

The appeal is accordingly allowed in part .

¶59

Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶60

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Geetha Manekar v. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha Manekar v. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt. Chikkennamma

Divisional Controller Vs Rangaiaha

Sri Narasimhamurthy a T Vs Smt Prathiba H

Sri. Chandrashekar Vs Cholamanadalam Ms General Company Ltd.

M/S. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri. Lakshmana Gowda

Rathnakar Vs Raghavendra Prasad