Partly allowed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indiramma

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2024MFA/5972/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross-appeals by insurer and claimants on a fatal motorcycle accident award. Court reassessed deceased's income notionally at Rs.8,000/- p.m., applied multiplier 11 with 10% future prospects, excluded married daughter from dependants, added consortium and other heads, reducing compensation to Rs.10,27,400/- at 6% interest; claimants' enhancement appeal dismissed, insurer's appeal partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Award reduced to Rs.10,27,400/- with 6% p.a. interest; insurer to deposit within four weeks; distribution: claimant 1 - 50%, claimants 2 & 3 - 25% each, claimant 4 - Rs.48,000/-. Claimants' appeal dis

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Indiramma — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:42949-DB MFA No.5972/2017 C/W MFA No.9613/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5972/2017 (MV-D)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9613/2018 (MV-D)

¶10

IN M.F.A. No.5972/2017

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560025 BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV.,)

¶15

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

INDIRAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶18

SHAILA @ SHAILAJA K D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶19

NETHRAVATHI D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

¶20

ALL ARE R/AT. WARD NO.24 NARASIMHAPETE CHINTAMANI TOWN CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563123.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:42949-DB MFA No.5972/2017 C/W MFA No.9613/2018

¶23

MALATHI .K D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA W/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT. VALMIKI NAGARA HOSAPALYA VILLAGE MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563131.

¶24

RAMACHANDRA T.N. S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT. OLD VANI SCHOOL ROAD TANK BUND ROAD, CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563123.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. K. THEJAS, ADV., FOR SMT. DIVYA K, ADV., FOR R1 TO R4 V/O DTD:02.09.2024 NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.03.2017 IN MVC NO.51/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT CHINTHAMANI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶28

IN M.F.A. NO.9613/2018

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

SMT. INDIRAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶31

SHAILA @ SHAILAJA K D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

¶32

NETHRAVATHI D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT WARD NO.24, NARASIMHAPETE CHINTHAMANI TOWN CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563125.

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42949-DB MFA No.5972/2017 C/W MFA No.9613/2018

¶34

MALATHI .K D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA W/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT VALMIKI NAGARA HOSAPALYA VILLAGE MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563131.

¶35

...APPELLANTS

¶36

(BY SRI. K. THEJAS, ADV., FOR SMT. DIVYA K, ADV.,)

¶37

AND:

¶38

RAMACHANDRA T.N. S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT OLD VANI SCHOOL ROAD TANK BUND ROAD, CHINTHAMANI CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563125.

¶39

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICER NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE-560 025.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV., FOR R2)

¶42

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MVC NO.51/2014 FROM THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHINTHAMANI. ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ORDERING FOR ENHANCING THE AWARD AMOUNT FROM RS.13,15,000/- TO RS.50,00,000/- AND KINDLY ORDER ENHANCING THE RATE OF INTEREST FROM 9% TO 12% BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.03.2017 AWARDED IN MVC NO.51/2014 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT CHINTHAMANI & ETC.

¶43

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:42949-DB MFA No.5972/2017 C/W MFA No.9613/2018

¶46

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶47

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶48

Challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC

¶49

No.51/2014, on the file of the Sr. Civil Judge and MACT, Chinthamani, claimants have filed MFA No.9613/2018 and insurer has filed MFA No.5972/2017.

¶50

The legal heirs of deceased Sri.Krishnappa filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking compensation for his death in a road accident that occurred on 15.10.2012. It was contended that the deceased was aged about 53 years was working as building construction Supervisor-cum-Mason, earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- p.m. and contributed the entire amount to the family. It was further contended that on 15.10.2012 at about 1.30 p.m. when Krishnappa was walking on the side of Chinthamani-Bagepalli road, TVS Streak motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-40 TRTC-05 rode by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, hit him. He fell down, sustained grievous injuries, was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Chinthamani, where he was provided first aid treatment and thereafter was shifted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital,

¶51

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42949-DB MFA No.5972/2017 C/W MFA No.9613/2018

¶52

Kolar. Krishnappa died in the hospital on 16.10.2012. It was also contended that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and the claimants have lost the dependency, estate, love and affection. Hence, they sought for compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

¶53

Respondents entered appearance before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 did not file written statement. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the occurrence of the accident, due to actionable negligence of rider of the motor cycle, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased as he was crossing the road abruptly without looking to the vehicles on the road. Hence, they are not liable to pay compensation and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶54

The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties. Claimant No.3 got examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21 (at page 13 of the judgment - list of documents marked are wrongly shown as only Ex.P1 to P15.) The respondents did not adduce any oral evidence but with consent,

¶55

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42949-DB MFA No.5972/2017 C/W MFA No.9613/2018

¶56

got marked Exs.R1 and R2. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.13,15,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. Being aggrieved, the above appeals are preferred.

¶57

Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal committed error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m. without any evidence. It is submitted that the Tribunal also erred in deducting 1/4^th of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses considering claimant No.4 married daughter as dependant which is contrary to law and appropriate deduction should be 1/3^rd . It is further submitted that awarding of interest by the Tribunal at 9% is also on higher side. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal of the insurer by reducing the compensation amount.

¶58

Per contra, Sri.K.Thejus, learned counsel for the

¶59

appellants / claimants submits that the deceased was working as a Building Construction Supervisor-cum-Mason and earning

¶60

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:42949-DB MFA No.5972/2017 C/W MFA No.9613/2018

¶61

Rs.25,000/- p.m. PW-1, daughter of the deceased has clearly deposed before the Tribunal with regard to the income of the deceased and also produced Ex.P18 - ID card of the deceased issued by the Government of Karnataka, Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Board, which clearly demonstrates that the deceased was skilled worker and his income is required to be assessed at Rs.25,000/- p.m. He further submits that in addition, claimants have produced Ex.P20 - RTC which indicates that the deceased owns 1 acre of land. The claimants have also produced the admission ticket of PW-3 who was pursuing engineering course at SVT Institute of Technology, Bengaluru. These documentary evidence indicate that the deceased was capable of providing good education to his children. Hence, his income is required to be assessed atleast at Rs.25,000/- p.m. It is also submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal under the head of consortium, loss of estate is on the lower side and no compensation has been awarded under the head of medical expenses as the deceased was provided treatment at Government Hospital, Chinthamani and later at R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar. Learned counsel has made available certified copies of the pleadings,

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:42949-DB MFA No.5972/2017 C/W MFA No.9613/2018

¶63

deposition and exhibits. He seeks to allow the appeal filed by the claimants by enhancing the compensation.

¶64

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and examining the materials on record, the point that arises for consideration is “ Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference in these appeals?"

¶65

ANALYSIS

¶66

The wife and children of the deceased Krishnappa filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 53 years at the time of accident and the Tribunal considering him as labourer, notionally assessed his income at Rs.10,000/- p.m. and determined the compensation. Learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the claimants have not produced any legally acceptable evidence with regard to the income. Hence, his income is required to be assessed notionally. Though, the claimants have produced Ex.P18, ID card of the deceased issued by the Government of Karnataka, Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Board and RTC of Sy.No.100 of

¶67

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:42949-DB MFA No.5972/2017 C/W MFA No.9613/2018

¶68

Chinthamani Village, there is no proof of actual income. Ex.P19 admission card of claimant No.3 at SVT Institute of Technology, Bengaluru for Engineering course in Electronics and Communication Engineering may only show that claimant No.3 was dependant of the deceased, but that does not prove the actual income of the deceased. His employers or contractors were not examined. Therefore, only available option was to assess the income notionally. Considering the age of the deceased, prevailing wage rates and cost of injury for the year 2012, it would be just to re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m.

¶69

The Tribunal has considered all the claimants as dependants. Admittedly, claimant No.4 Smt.Malathi K. is married and residing with her husband in different place and there is no evidence on record to indicate that claimant No.4 was dependant on the deceased. In the absence of any such evidence on record, we are of the considered view that claimant Nos.1 to 3 are the dependants of the deceased. Hence, appropriate deduction under the personal and living expenses of the deceased would be 1/3^rd as against 1/4^th considered by the Tribunal.

¶70

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:42949-DB MFA No.5972/2017 C/W MFA No.9613/2018

¶71

Deceased was aged about 53 years at the time of accident, hence appropriate multiplier is 11. The claimants are also entitled to addition of 10% of the assessed income under the head of loss of future prospects. Each of the claimants are entitled to consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- with 20% escalation. The claimants are also entitled to compensation under the head of loss of estate at Rs.15,000/- with 20% escalation and Rs.15,000/- with 20% escalation under the head of transportation of dead body and funeral expenses.

¶72

The evidence on record indicates that immediately after the accident, the deceased was taken to hospital at Chinthamani and was provided treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar and treated there. Deceased succumbed to the injuries on 16.10.2012 at R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar. The said fact is evident from police complaint at Ex.P2, charge sheet at Ex.P3 and inquest report at Ex.P5. Considering these facts, we are of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if compensation of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the head of medical expenses and transportation of injured from the spot of accident to

¶73

11 -

¶74

NC: 2024:KHC:42949-DB MFA No.5972/2017 C/W MFA No.9613/2018

¶75

Chinthamani Hospital and later to R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar.

¶76

The compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶77

The compensation is re-determined as under:

¶78

*Sl.* *No.*	*Particulars*	*Compensation* *awarded in Rs.*
1.	Loss of dependency (Rs.8,000 + 800 (10% future prospects) x 12 x 11-1/3)	7,74,400/-
2.	Loss of consortium (Rs.48,000/-x 4)	1,92,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	18,000/-
4.	Loss of estate	18,000/-
5.	Medical and other expenses	25,000/-
	Total	Rs.10,27,400/-

¶79

For the aforementioned reasons, we pass the

¶80

following:

¶81

ORDER

¶82

i. MFA No.9613/2018 is hereby dismissed.

¶83

ii. MFA No.5972/2017 is hereby partly allowed.

¶84

iii. The impugned award in MVC No.51/2014 is

¶85

modified as follows:

¶86

iv. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.10,27,400/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶87

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:42949-DB MFA No.5972/2017 C/W MFA No.9613/2018

¶88

v. Respondent No.2 - insurer shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal, on adjusting amount, already deposited, if any, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶89

vi. Out of the amount deposited, claimant No.4 shall be paid Rs.48,000/-. In the balance amount, claimant No.1 is entitled to 50% and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to 25% each.

¶90

vii. On depositing the amount, the Tribunal shall digitally release the amount to the claimants accordingly.

¶91

viii. TCRs shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶92

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶93

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶94

¶95

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indiramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indiramma

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

Smt. Puttadevamma Vs Harisha

Ayub Khan Vs the Proprietor

P B Nagaraj @ Pujara Nagaraja Vs the Partner

L Kiran Kumar Vs Managing Partner

Sri K H Bommalingaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rajamma Vs Sri Nagaraj K