The Manager Vs Panchalamma

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:36819 MFA No. 6022 of 2019

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6022/2019 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE MANAGER, M/S. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., UNIT NO.401, 4^TH FLOOR, SANGAM COMPLEX, 127, ANDERI KURLA ROAD, ANDERI EAST, MUMBAI-400 059. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NO.217/A, 3^RD FLOOR, K.V.V. SAMRAT, 3RD MAIN ROAD, OUTER RING ROAD, KASTHURINAGARA, OPPOSITE SAIL FACTORY BENGALURU-560 043 NOW REP BY M/S. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PLOT NO.EL94, KLS TOWER, Digitally signed T.T.C INDUSTRIAL AREA, by MIDC, MAHAPE, PADMASHREE NAVI MUMBAI-4700701. SHEKHAR DESAI …APPELLANT Location: High (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR Court Of SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA., ADVOCATE) Karnatka

¶8

AND:

¶9

PANCHALAMMA, W/O LATE MANI, R/AT 5^TH WARD, MEENAK, SHINAGARA, TURUVEKERE TOWN, TURUVEKERE TALUK.

¶10

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36819 MFA No. 6022 of 2019

¶11

HC-KAR

¶12

KARIBASAVASWAMY M.N., S/O N.G.MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O BEHIND BETERAYASWAMY TEMPLE, NONAVINAKERE, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. KIRAN M.P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.N MADHUSUDHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1, V/O DATED:01.08.2023, NOTICE TO R2 D/W)

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 27.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1069/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, TURUVEKERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,74,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is preferred by the insurance company against the judgment and award dated 27.03.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Turuvekere in MVC No.1069 of 2017.

¶20

One Mani met with an accident on 22.01.2017 and died. His wife filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest. The Tribunal considered the entire

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36819 MFA No. 6022 of 2019

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

record and granted Rs.7,74,000/- with interest at the rate of

¶24

6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶25

Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company preferred this appeal mainly contending that the income of the deceased was wrongly taken by the Tribunal as Rs.6,000/- per month and it is to be reduced. The deceased was aged 60 years at the time of the accident and the multiplier is to be taken as 9, but the tribunal has erred in taking it as 13. One third of the monthly income is to be deducted towards personal expenses, but the Tribunal has deducted 50%. The amount granted under conventional heads is to be reduced and requested for modification of the order.

¶26

It was stated that the deceased Mani was aged 50 years and doing match stick business, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal has taken the income as Rs.6,000/per month. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant contended that no income proof of the deceased was produced by the claimant and hence, requested the Court to take his notional income as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As the deceased met with the

¶27

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36819 MFA No. 6022 of 2019

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

accident in the year 2017, the monthly income of Rs.11,000/is to be taken, but in the claim petition, the claimant himself stated the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to take the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. The age of the deceased, as per PM report, is shown as 50 years. But the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has contended that the claimant filed xerox copy of the Election ID card, in which the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 1959. As the deceased met with the accident in the year 2017, he was aged 58 years, as per the Election ID card. But the election ID card was not marked before the tribunal, and the said objection regarding the age was not raised either before the Tribunal or before this Court. Therefore, the said contention at the time of arguments cannot be accepted.

¶30

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi¹ , held that

¶31

the future prospects of income of the self-employed deceased shall also be included in determination of the compensation.

¶32

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36819 MFA No. 6022 of 2019

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Thus, considering the age of the deceased, 10% of the income has to be added towards future prospects and thus the amount would become Rs.11,000/- per month (10,000+10%). As per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in dictum of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation² , if the deceased was married and if there are two-three dependents, 1/3^rd of his income towards his personal expenses has to be deducted. Thus, the income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to Rs.7,333/- per month. The Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 50 years, as per the PM report, and has rightly applied the multiplier as 13. Therefore, loss of dependency would be Rs.11,43,948/- (7333 x 12 x 13), rounded of to Rs.11,44,000/- .

¶36

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the comprehensive interpretation of ‘consortium’ given in the authority of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & others³ , and in the authority between United India Insurance Company

¶37

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶38

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36819 MFA No. 6022 of 2019

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others⁴ ,

¶42

fortified that the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their parents as ‘parental consortium’ and to the parents as, ‘filial consortium’ for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their agony, love and affection, care and companionship of deceased children. Accordingly, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the claimant. She is also entitled for an amount of Rs.30,000/- under the conventional heads as per the citation in

¶43

the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

¶44

Pranay Sethi . Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.12,13,948/-.

¶45

On 22.01.2017, while the deceased Mani was returning from his work, the driver of the offending vehicle Tempo Trax bearing No.KA-44-2331 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed him and as a result, the deceased sustained injuries. He was shifted to the hospital and died on the same day at 01.30 a.m. But the Tribunal assessed the

¶46

4 (2020) 9 SCC 644

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:36819 MFA No. 6022 of 2019

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

contributory negligence of the deceased as 50% and the insurance company as 50%. It is for the appellant-insurance company to plead and prove the contributory negligence. Neither they plead in their written statement, nor proved. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in fixing 50% of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, and the finding to that effect is set aside.

¶50

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The appellantinsurance company is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.12,13,948/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. The appellantinsurance company shall deposit the compensation within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit, the first respondent-wife of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. The amount already deposited by the appellant-insurance company is to be transferred to the Tribunal.

¶51

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶52

CS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79

The Manager v. Panchalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Panchalamma

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

The Manager Vs Sri William Dayananda

Kumari Chaithra Vs Shayabanu

Smt. Suma P Vs Mr. C.Raju Gowda

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Sri Karinayaka

Divisional Manager Vs Sri Swamy R

Sri Chandrappa Vs Gnaneshwari Anbalgan