Partly allowed

The Branch Manager v. Smt. Parvathamma

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2024MFA/640/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the insurer's appeal against compensation awarded for a motor vehicle accident death. The court upheld the applicability of the Motor Vehicles Act, affirmed the multiplier-based calculation for compensation, and partly allowed the cross-objection by enhancing the award while addressing distribution of funds.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; cross-objection allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs.9,51,612/-; insurer directed to deposit amount.

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Parvathamma — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45842 MFA No. 640 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 28 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 640 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶7

C/W

¶8

MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 28 OF 2023 (MV-D)

¶9

IN MFA No. 640/2018:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SHIVAMOGGA

¶12

REP. BY THE MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., 2ND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, 9/2, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶13

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

¶14

(BY SMT. MANJULA .N.TEJASWI., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

…APPELLANT

¶17

SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE N NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶18

SRI N CHANDRASHEKHARA S/O LATE N NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶19

KUM CHAITRA D/O LATE N NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:45842 MFA No. 640 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 28 of 2023

¶22

ALL ARE R/O HARNAHALLI ROAD, AYANUR, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577211.

¶23

SRI MUSTAQ AHAMED S/O ABDUL BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O SAW MILL ROAD, AYANUR, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577211 (OWNER OF TEMPO TRAX LUGGAGE CARRIER BEARING REGN NO.KA-18-6620).

¶24

SRI SYED MAZAR @ ABDUL RAOOF S/O MOAMMED IBRAHIM SAB, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O CIPLI LINGADAHALLI, SAGARA TALUK-577401 (DRIVER OF TEMPO TRAX LUGGAGE CARRIER BEARING REGN NO.KA-18-6620)

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. P.N.HARISH., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; R-4 SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED:06.02.2023, NOTICE TO R-5 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.56/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT-8, SHIVAMOGGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,88,000/WITH INTEREST @ P.A. FORM THE DATE OF PETITION ie., 16.01.2016 TILL REALIZATION.

¶28

IN MFA.CROB NO. 28/2023:

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

PARVATHAMMA W/O. LATE N. NAGARAJ, AGED BOUT 47 YEARS,

¶31

N. CHANDRASHEKARA

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:45842 MFA No. 640 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 28 of 2023

¶34

S/O. LATE N. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶35

CHAITRA D/O. LATE N. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶36

ALL ARE R/O. HARANAHALLI ROAD, AYANUR, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 211.

¶37

...CROSS OBJECTORS

¶38

(BY SRI. P N HARISH., ADVOCATE)

¶39

AND:

¶40

THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.

¶41

REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2^ND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, 9/2, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶42

MUSTAQ AHAMED S/O. ABDUL BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. SAW MILL ROAD, AYANUR, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577 211,

¶43

(OWNER OF TEMPO TRAX LUGGAGE CARRIER BERAING REG. NO. KA-18-6620)

¶44

SYED MAZAR @ ABDUL RAOF S/O. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM SAB, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. CIPLA, LINGADAHALLI, SAGAR TALUK-577 401, (DRIVER OF TEMPO TRAX LUGGAGE CARRIER BEARING REG. NO. KA-18-6620)

¶45

...RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SMT.MANJULA N.TEJASWI., ADVOCATE)

¶47

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45842 MFA No. 640 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 28 of 2023

¶48

THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 READ WITH SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.56/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-8, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶49

THIS APPEAL ALONG WITH MFA CROB., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶50

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶51

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶52

The insurer is in appeal questioning the award of Rs.6,88,000/- awarded for the death of N.Nagaraj, who was traveling in a Tempo Trax luggage carrier as a coolie.

¶53

The claimants have filed cross objections seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶54

It is the case of the Insurer that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-, since as provided under the Employees’ Compensation Act, it ought to have taken it as Rs.2,000/i.e., 50% of Rs.4,000/-. This argument of the insurer, at the outset, cannot be accepted since the claim petition was admittedly filed under Section 166 of the Motor

¶55

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45842 MFA No. 640 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 28 of 2023

¶56

Vehicles Act and once the claimant has opted to file a claim petition seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the question of applying the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act would not arise.

¶57

The other argument of the insurer that only one employee was covered under the policy and the insurer had satisfied the compensation in respect of a claim made by one employee and therefore, its liability came to an end cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the insured had issued with an insurance policy for a goods vehicle and in goods vehicle, it is permissible under Rule 100 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 for employees to be carried. Since the proviso to Rule 100 of said Rules permits light transport goods vehicle which weighs more than 990 kilos to carry three employees and especially when the laden weight of the vehicle in question in this appeal is 1785 kilos, the liability of the insurer to the extent of three employees cannot be denied.

¶58

In view of the above, since the accident was of the year 2010, it would be appropriate to adopt the notional income determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services

¶59

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45842 MFA No. 640 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 28 of 2023

¶60

Authority, which would be Rs.5,500/- and since the deceased was aged 45 years, 25% requires to be added towards future prospects, which makes the income to be Rs.6,875/-. Since there are three dependants, 1/3^rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses, which would be Rs.4,584/-. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.7,70,112/- (Rs.4,584 X 12 X 14multiplier).

¶61

The claimants being the wife and children of N.Nagaraj, would be entitled to Rs.48,400/- each i.e., in all Rs.1,45,200/- towards loss of consortium. They would also be entitled to Rs.36,300/- under conventional heads.

¶62

Thus, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.9,51,612/as against Rs.6,88,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation for the death of N.Nagaraj along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶63

The insurer is directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶64

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:45842 MFA No. 640 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 28 of 2023

¶65

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

¶66

On deposit being made by the insurer, claimant No.1, wife of the deceased would be entitled to entire amount of compensation except Rs.48,400/- each awarded to claimant No.2 (son) and claimant No.3 (daughter) towards loss of consortium, which they would be entitled to withdraw.

¶67

Out of the amount, which claimant No.1 would be entitled, 50% shall be invested in fixed deposit with permission to her to withdraw the accrued interest monthly/quarterly, and the remaining 50% shall be permitted to be withdrawn by her.

¶68

Accordingly, the appeal of the insurer is dismissed, and the cross-objection of the claimants is allowed in part.

¶69

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶70

PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

The Branch Manager v. Smt. Parvathamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Smt. Parvathamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Kumar Vs Sri. C. Nagappa

Sri. Kandan N Vs Sri. R. Paramesh

Sri Ravikumar Vs Sri Chandrashekar v Bhat

Chandra G Vs M/S Icici Lambord Gen Insurance Co. Ltd.

Prabhakar Reddy Vs the Manager

Karnataka State Road Vs Chikkalingamma