M/S United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt Geetha Bhai

M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., REGIONAL OFFICE, 6^TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY MS. RASHMI M.S. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.M VENKATESH., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally Signed by REKHA R

¶14

Location : High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SMT. GEETHA BHAI, W/O LATE MANGILAL BANJARA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶16

MR. VINODHA, S/O LATE MANGILAL BANJARA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶17

BOTH ARE R/AT PARLI VILLAGE, KHEJDRA POST, MANDASUR DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH - 176 804.

¶18

SMT. KASTHURI THILAGAM, W/O S.SANTHOSH, NO.717,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:46809 MFA No. 5028 of 2016

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

BEL COMPANY, NAGALAND CIRCLE, D.B. SANDRA, OPP. BEL KISHORE VIHAR, BENGALURU - 560 013.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.T. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.T. GURUDEV PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.4909/14 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, 16TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.15,48,000/WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT IN TIME C.F. SUFFICIENT I A 1/16 FOR STAY IA 1/16 FILED U/O.41 RULE 5 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, PLEASED TO STAY THE EXECUTION OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE MACT, BENGALURU IN MVC NO.4909/14 DATED 16.04.2016 PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:46809 MFA No. 5028 of 2016

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

This appeal is filed by the appellant/United Insurance Company Limited, only on the quantum. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle, death of Prakash Banjara S/o. Mangilal Banjara, and the liability to pay compensation are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to higher income, percentage of future prospectus, so also the interest awarded by the Tribunal.

¶33

The parties are referred to as per their ranking

¶34

before the Tribunal for easy reference.

¶35

Heard, madam Rashmi.M.S, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.A.M.Venkatesh, learned Senior panel counsel for appellant/United Insurance Company Limited and Sri.K.T.Gurudeva Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶36

Vide order dated 28.02.2024, notice issued to respondent No.3 is held sufficient.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46809 MFA No. 5028 of 2016

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Madam Rashmi M.S, argued on three grounds:

¶40

a. The Tribunal has considered the income at Rs.9,000/- p.m., for the accident occurred in the year 2014, in the absence of any proof of income. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (‘KSLSA’ for short) for settlement of cases before the Lok Adalat the income fixed for the year 2014 is Rs.8,500/-.

¶41

b. The Tribunal has added 50% towards future prospectus, considering the fact that the deceased was 23 years as on the date of death. However, as per the settled position of law, in case of a selfemployed, 40% must be added towards future prospectus.

¶42

c. The Tribunal has awarded 9% interest in the absence of any material to that effect

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46809 MFA No. 5028 of 2016

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

on the compensation, a perusal of judgment lucidly clarifies that no deliberations by the Tribunal attributed for awarding exorbitant interest at the rate of 9% p.a,. With these submission Madam Rashmi, sought to allow the appeal and modify the award by reducing the compensation.

¶46

Refuting the submissions of Madam Rashmi M.S, Sri. K.T.Gurudeva Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the deceased was a blanket seller. The deceased originally hails from Madhya Pradesh and migrated to Karnataka. In these circumstances, the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000/- cannot be termed as exorbitant. The income could have been taken more than Rs.9,000/-, as the deceased migrated from Madhya Pradesh to Karnataka to earn fortune for his family, in these circumstances, the

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:46809 MFA No. 5028 of 2016

¶48

6 -

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Tribunal have taken the income as claimed by the claimants at Rs.15,000/- per month i.e., Rs.500/- per day.

¶51

As the Tribunal has taken the income of Rs.9,000/-, the future prospectus at 50% be adjusted towards the same. The Tribunal has considered the prevailing at the point of time on the fixed deposit while awarding interest. In these circumstances, none of the contentions raised by the appellant made out any case to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶52

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the incident had occurred in the year 2014. As per the KSLSA chart, the income fixed is at Rs.8,500/- p.m. In the

¶53

absence of any income of proof, the Tribunal has considered the income at Rs.9,000/which is in contravention of the income under the chart stated supra .

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46809 MFA No. 5028 of 2016

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

9. The contentions of Sri. K.T.Gurudeva Prasad,

¶57

that the deceased had migrated from Madhya Pradesh to Karnataka for earning fortune to his family, cannot be countenanced in the absence of proof to show the investment and income generated in his business of selling blankets. In the absence of proof, the Tribunal erred in law in taking the income at higher rate and adding ‘future prospectus’ at 50% instead 40% as well as awarding higher interest.

¶58

Having considered these aspects of the matter,

¶59

this Court proceeded to reconsider and re-assess the

¶60

compensation awarded by Tribunal which is as under:

¶61

Sl. No.	Particulars		Rs.	Amount
1.	Loss of dependency (Rs.8500+40%x12x18x50%)	:	Rs.	12,85,200/-
2.	Loss oflove and affection	:	Rs.	80,000/-
3.	Loss of estate	:	Rs.	15,000/-
4.	Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses	:	Rs.	15,000/-
5.	20% escalation for two completed for 3 three years (Rs.1,10,000/10%=11,000x2)	:	Rs.	22,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	14,17,200/-

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46809 MFA No. 5028 of 2016

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

In view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

¶65

Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PRANAY

¶66

SETHI¹ 10% escalation on the compensation awarded under the convention required to be extended to the claimants from 2017. Since the accident is of the year 2014, the claimants are entitled for 10% escalation for 2 terms of 3 years each, on conventional heads which comes to 20% and works out to Rs.22,000/-

¶67

The claimants are entitled to a reduced

¶68

compensation of Rs.14,17,200/- as against Rs.15,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The reduced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶69

For the following reasons, this Court proceeds to the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i) Appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶72

1 2017 (16) SCC 680

¶73

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46809 MFA No. 5028 of 2016

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

ii) The judgment and award dated 16.04.2016 in MVC.No.4909/2016 passed by MACT, Bangalore City, SCCH-14, is modified and reduced.

¶76

iii) The claimants are entitled for reduced compensation of Rs.14,17,200/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶77

iv) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement.

¶78

v) The appellant-insurer shall deposit balance reduced compensation along with accrued interest supra , before the concerned Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶79

vi) The apportionment and disbursement is as per the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶80

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶81

PK

¶82

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt Geetha Bhai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt Geetha Bhai

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

Akbar Sab Vs the Managing Director

Smt Chondavva P E Vs Sri Murali v

Mr Narayana Shetty Vs Mrs Nayana Holla

Sri. Ramesh Babu D Vs the Managing Director

M/S Reliance General Ins.Co.Ltd Vs Paramashivaiah B.N

Pradeep v M Vs Reliance Gen Ins Co. Ltd.