The Manager Vs Sri William Dayananda

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:36278 MFA No. 1161 of 2019

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1161/2019 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE MANAGER, UNIVERSAL SOMPO GIC LTD, 1^ST FLOOR, OPP CITY HOSPITAL, KADRI, MANGALURU 03, AND ALSO : REGD & CORPORATE OFFICE, UNIT NO.401, 4^TH FLOOR, SANGAMA COMPLEX, 127 ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400 069

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. WILLIAM DAYANANDA, S/O V. PAUL AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR 2. PAUILINE CHRISTINA W., DESAI D/O WILLIAMS DAYANANDA P., Location: High AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS Court Of Karnatka R/O NO.60, M.S. BUILDING, TILAKNAGAR, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041.

¶13

SRI. KIRAN KUMAR S, S/O SHANKARAPPA, R/O NO.23, 1^ST D MAIN ROAD, BTM 2^ND STAGE

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36278 MFA No. 1161 of 2019

HC-KAR

BENGALURU-560 076.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. H SIDDESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, V/O DTD:06.09.2019, NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02/11/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1514/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-15), AWARDING COMPENSATION ORF RS.31,14,000/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 02.11.2018, passed in MVC No.1514/2017, on the file of the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, for reducing the compensation.

¶23

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with. The

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36278 MFA No. 1161 of 2019

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶27

Brief facts of the case is that one Uma Bai aged 49 years, met with an accident on 12.12.2016. Her husband and daughter filed claim application claiming compensation of RS.2 Crores before the tribunal. The tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted Rs.31,14,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.

¶28

Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company and they mainly contended that the tribunal considered the income of the deceased as RS.23,413/- per month without any evidence and they have deducted 1/3^rd towards personal expenses instead of 50%. It is further contended that the daughter is a major and husband of the deceased is not depending on her and is working in post office. Further contended

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:36278 MFA No. 1161 of 2019

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

that the amount granted is on the higher side. Therefore,

¶33

requested for reduction of the compensation.

¶34

On perusal of the record, it shows that the deceased was working as Assistant Operator in Amazon Distributors Private Limited and getting a gross salary of Rs.30,399/- but the Tribunal rightly considered the net income of Rs.23,413/-. This court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding.

¶35

Further, 25% of amount was added towards future prospects and 1/3^rd is deducted towards personal expenses. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the husband is not depending on her and so also daughter is major, therefore only 50% is to be deducted towards her personal expenses. Admittedly she is married and having husband and daughter. Therefore, 50% of amount towards her personal expenses cannot be deducted and 1/3^rd was rightly deducted by the Tribunal and it needs no interference. The tribunal rightly granted

¶36