Smt. S.L. Geetha Vs Sri J. Ramesh

SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS C/O M T SHIVANNA R/AT DASARABEEDI MAGADI TOWN, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 120 … APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI VIJAYENDRA D JOSHI, ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB MFA No.3099/2014 C/w MFA No.2778/2012

¶21

AND:

¶22

SRI J.RAMESH S/O JAYARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.387, 2^ND CROSS 3^RD MAIN ROAD, KAMALANAGARA BANGALORE – 560 079 (DRIVER OF VEHICLE KA-02-D-4182)

¶23

SRI Y RAGHUNATH S/O YALAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.18/33, JNANABHARATHI MAIN ROAD NAGARABHAVI CIRCLE BANGALORE – 560 072 (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-02-D-4182)

¶24

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.4/3/-1 & 3/2M 11^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 061 REP. BY IT’S DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY (POLICY NO.1405782340001892 VALID FROM 16.11.2008 TO 15.11.2009) … RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI H.S.LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT V/C/O DATED 02.01.2023; R1 SERVED)

¶26

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.10.2011 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.382/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

MFA No.2778/2012:

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO.4/3-1 & 3/2, 11^TH MAIN ROAD

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB MFA No.3099/2014 C/w MFA No.2778/2012

¶32

III BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 061 NOW AT NO.28, 5^TH FLOOR, EAST WING CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001

¶33

REP. BY ITS LEGAL ZONE MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI H S LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

S.L.GEETHA NOW AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY

¶36

KUM. M.N. DRAVYA NOW AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS D/O NARASIMHAMURTHY (SINCE MINOR REP BY HER MOTHER/ SMT. S.L. GEETHA/R1 HEREIN)

¶37

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.13, 3^RD CROSS I MAIN ROAD, R.M.V. II STAGE AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT

¶38

SANJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 094

¶39

LAKSHMAMMA NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O MUNISWAMAPPA C/O M.T. SHIVANNA R/AT DASARABEEDHI MAGADI TOWN, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 120

¶40

J. RAMESH

¶41

NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O JAYARANGAIAH R/AT NO.387, 2^ND CROSS 3^RD MAIN, KAMALANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 079

¶42

Y. RAGHUNATH NOW AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O YALAGAIAH R/AT NO.18/33, JNANABHARATHI MAIN ROAD

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB MFA No.3099/2014 C/w MFA No.2778/2012

¶44

4 -

¶45

NAGARABHAVI CIRCLE BANGALORE – 560 072 … RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI VIJAYENDRA D JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 & R5 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 19.06.2015)

¶47

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.10.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.382/2010 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.14,80,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶48

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

¶49

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶50

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶51

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

¶52

These appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 04.10.2011 in M.V.C.No.382/2010 passed by II Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, MACT, Bengaluru.

¶53

Appellants in M.F.A.No.3099/2014 were claimant Nos.1 to 3 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the said appeal were respondent Nos.1 to 3 in M.V.C.No.382/2010 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are

¶54

5 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB MFA No.3099/2014 C/w MFA No.2778/2012

¶56

referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶57

Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are wife and daughter and claimant No.3 is mother of deceased Narasimha Murthy. On 01.09.2009 at 7.30 p.m. when Narasimha Murthy was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.DL-35-SW-7078 near Jyothipalya within the limits of Magadi Police Station, driver of Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-02-D-4182 hit Narasimha Murthy. Narasimha Murthy succumbed to the injuries at the spot. At the time of the accident, respondent No.1 was the driver, respondent No.2 was the registered owner and respondent No.3 was the insurer of Tempo Traveller vehicle bearing No.KA-02-D-4182. Regarding the accident, on the basis of the complaint filed by one M.S.Nijaguna Shivayogi, Magadi police on investigation filed charge sheet against respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.

¶58

Claimants filed M.V.C.No.382/2010 against the respondents contending that the accident and death of Narasimha Murthy occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of respondent No.1 in driving Tempo Traveller vehicle

¶59

6 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB MFA No.3099/2014 C/w MFA No.2778/2012

¶61

bearing No. KA-02-D-4182. They further contended that they were all depending on the income of the deceased, he was earning Rs.11,500/- per month from his employment as Superintendent of B.Ed College and he was an ex-service man. They claimed compensation of Rs.1,24,07,560/- from the respondents.

¶62

Respondent No.2 did not contest the petition. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 contested the petition denying occurrence of the accident, actionable negligence on the part of the driver of Tempo Traveller, age, avocation, income of the deceased and their liability to pay the compensation.

¶63

Before the Tribunal, to substantiate the case, claimants examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P29. Respondents did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and award held that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of respondent No.1 in driving Tempo Traveller vehicle bearing No.KA-02-D-4182. The Tribunal based on the evidence of PW.3/the employer and other materials on record, held that at the time of the accident, deceased was earning Rs.11,500/per month, deducted 1/3^rd from his income for personal

¶64

7 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB MFA No.3099/2014 C/w MFA No.2778/2012

¶66

expenses, applied 15 multiplier and awarded compensation of Rs.13,80,000/- on the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal

¶67

in all awarded Rs.14,80,000/- on different heads as follows:

¶68

1	Loss of income/dependency	Rs.13,80,000/-
2	Loss of consortium	Rs.15,000/-
3	Loss of estate	Rs.10,000/-
4	Loss of love and affection	Rs.15,000/-
5	Transportation & Funeral expenses	Rs.10,000/-
	Total	14,30,000/-
	Wrongly shown due to arithmetical error	14,80,000/-

¶69

The Tribunal held that insurer/respondent No.3 is liable to indemnify the damages with interest at 6% per annum.

¶70

Questioning the adequacy of compensation, the claimants have preferred M.F.A.No.3099/2014. Insurer has preferred M.F.A.No.2778/2012 contending that in assessing the income of deceased, the Tribunal ought to have deducted pension which was being received by claimant No.1.

¶71

Sri Vijayendra D.Joshi, learned Counsel for the claimants reiterating the grounds of appeal submits that the compensation awarded on the head of loss of dependency and other conventional heads is on the lower side. He further submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded future prospects on the income of the deceased.

¶72

8 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB MFA No.3099/2014 C/w MFA No.2778/2012

¶74

Sri H.S.Lingaraj, learned Counsel for the Insurer

¶75

submits that PW.1 has clearly admitted that she has been receiving family pension of Rs.5,400/- after death of her husband and the Tribunal ought to have deducted Rs.5,400/- in assessing the income of the deceased and loss of dependency.

¶76

On considering the submissions of both side and examining the materials on record, the question that arises for determination is “whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award is just one ?”

¶77

Analysis

¶78

The finding of the Tribunal that the accident and consequential death of Narasimha Murthy occurred on 01.09.2009 at 7.30 p.m. due to actionable negligence on the part of respondent No.1 in driving Tempo Traveller bearing No.KA-02-D-4182 is not under challenge. The relationship of the claimants with the deceased is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that Narasimha Murthy was earlier serving in Indian Army on Short Service Commission basis and was discharged from the said service. The evidence of PW.3 and other materials on record show that on his discharge from Indian Army, deceased was employed in D.K.Shivakumar B.Ed

¶79

9 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB MFA No.3099/2014 C/w MFA No.2778/2012

¶81

College. He was appointed as Superintendent in the said college run by Sri Hebbur Charitable Trust ® and was working as such in the said Institution between 13.08.2009 to 27.08.2009. Thereafter he was on leave. The evidence on record further shows that in the said employment his salary was fixed at Rs.11,500/-. After the death of Narasimha Murthy, his wife received the arrears salary which was due to him.

¶82

At the time of the accident, deceased was aged 38 years 4 months 27 days. In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi¹ and having regard to the age of the deceased, 40% has to be superadded to his income by way of future prospects. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation² , having regard to the fact that there were three dependants, 1/3^rd has to be deducted for personal expenses and the applicable multiplier is 15.

¶83

So far as the contention to deduct family pension of Rs.5,400/- received by claimant No.1, the law is no more res integra . Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶84

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶85

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶86

10 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB MFA No.3099/2014 C/w MFA No.2778/2012

¶88

Sebastiani Lakra v. National Insurance Company Ltd.³ relying

¶89

on its earlier judgments held that family pensions and other service benefits received by victim of the accident, shall not be deducted while computing compensation as they accrue to the victim and his family due to contract of the victim with his employer. Therefore the contention that the Tribunal ought to have deducted Rs.5,400/- in assessing monthly income deserves no acceptance. Thus just compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency is Rs.11,500/- + Rs.4,600/(40%)= Rs.16,100 x 2/3 = Rs.10,733/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.19,31,940/-.

¶90

As per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram⁴ each of the claimants

¶91

are entitled to compensation on the head of consortium at Rs.40,000/- with escalation at 10%, which comes to Rs.44,000 x 3= Rs.1,32,000/-.

¶92

As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra , the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on the head of loss of

¶93

3 AIR 2018 SC 5034

¶94

4 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶95

11 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB MFA No.3099/2014 C/w MFA No.2778/2012

¶97

estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and transportation

¶98

with escalation at 10%. Therefore the just compensation

¶99

payable is as follows:

¶100

Sl. No.	Particulars	Compensation awarded in Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	19,31,940/-
2.	Loss of consortium	1,32,000/-
3.	Loss of estate	16,500/-
4.	Funeral expenses & transportation charges	16,500/-
	Total	20,96,940/-
	Less: awarded by the Tribunal	14,80,000/-
	Enhanced compensation	6,16,940/-

¶101

Respondent No.3 being the Insurer is liable to pay the compensation. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum. Therefore the appeal of the claimants deserves to be allowed in part and the appeal of the Insurer is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:

¶102

ORDER

¶103

M.F.A.No.2778/2012 is hereby dismissed.

¶104

M.F.A.No.3099/2014 is partly allowed.

¶105

(a) Claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of

¶106

Rs.6,16,940/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶107

(b) Respondent No.3/Insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest before the

¶108

12 -

¶109

NC: 2025:KHC:632-DB MFA No.3099/2014 C/w MFA No.2778/2012

¶110

Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶111

(c) On such deposit, the Tribunal shall digitally release Rs.2,50,000/- to claimant No.1 and Rs.1,16,940/- to claimant No.3 and invest the balance amount in the name of claimant No.2 till she attains majority. If any proof of she attaining majority is produced, the Tribunal shall digitally release her share in compensation to her.

¶112

(d) Registry shall transmit the amount in deposit, if any, and the trial Court records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶113

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶114

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶115

KSR

¶116

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Smt. S.L. Geetha v. Sri J. Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. S.L. Geetha v. Sri J. Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sriram General Insurance Com Ltd. Vs Mrs Lethipa

M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. R Lakshmi

Yashodamma Vs Basavaraja

Mr. Sumantha K S Vs Mrs. Shruthi P

Raghavendra Devadiga Vs Manjunatha