The Legal Manager Vs Manjappa

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12505 MFA No. 6609 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6609 OF 2016 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE LEGAL MANAGER, BHARATI AXA GENEAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.30, III FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 560 024, NOW REPRESENTED BY LEGAL MANAGER, BHARATHI AXA GIC LTD., 1ST FLOOR, FERNS ICON, SURVEY NO.28, DODDANEKUNDI, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 037.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MANJAPPA, S/O LATE BYRAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BHAGYAMMA W/O MANJAPPA,

¶14

NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶15

KUM. VIDYA M, D/O MANJAPPA,

¶16

NOW AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A NO.112, 8TH MILE, NELAGADARANAHALLI, NAGASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 073.

¶17

JAYAMMA, W/O LATE THIMMAIAH, MAJOR, R/A NO.07, 3RD FLOOR, SANTHOSHNAGAR, ATTUR LAYOUT,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:12505 MFA No. 6609 of 2016

¶20

YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560 106.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 21.03.2017, NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 7.6.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2413/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 21ST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 19TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.19,41,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT IN THE TRIBUNAL.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C. No.2413/2015 dated 07.06.2016 by the Court of XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT (SSCH-23) at Bengaluru, the Insurance Company is before this Court. The Claim petition is filed seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- and the Tribunal by the order impugned had granted an amount of Rs.19,41,000/-.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the appellantInsurance Company submits that according to the claimants, he was earning an amount of Rs.12,000/- p.m. and he has examined the employer. The employer was cross-examined at length and they could elicit that the relevant material is not

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12505 MFA No. 6609 of 2016

¶30

placed to show that he is the owner of the Company and he is having a license to run the Company. It is submitted that the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.12,000/- which is on the higher side. It is submitted that the accident had occurred in the year 2015 and as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, as there is no evidence, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,000/- p.m.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the respondentsclaimants submits that the Insurance Company has failed to elicit anything in the cross examination of the employer and having examined the employer, the Tribunal had rightly taken income at Rs.12,000/- and there are no grounds to reduce the compensation.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. No doubt the claimant had examined the employer. The employer has stated that the deceased was working with him and his paying Rs.12,000/- per month, but when it comes to the cross-examination of employer, when he says that he is running a factory, he should need to have a license and other documents. Nothing has been

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12505 MFA No. 6609 of 2016

¶34

placed before the Court except stating that the deceased was working with him. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the finding of the Tribunal that nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination is contrary to the evidence on record and this Court is of the view that the Tribunal ought not to have taken income at Rs.12,000/-. Considering the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, this Court is taking the income at Rs.9,000/- p.m. The deceased was aged 26 years as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '17'. 40% income is to be added towards 'loss of future prospects in life'. As the deceased is a bachelor, 50% income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Therefore, the 'loss of dependency' is Rs. 9,000 + Rs.3,600 (40% of Rs.9,000) = Rs.12,600 x 50% = Rs.6,300 x 12 x 17 = Rs.12,85,200/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.12,85,200/- is awarded under the head 'loss of dependency'. Coming to the 'loss of consortium' , there are three dependents i.e., the sister and the parents. Hence, a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.44,000 x 3) is awarded under the said head. Towards 'funeral expenses' ,

¶35

a sum of Rs.36,000/- is awarded.

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12505 MFA No. 6609 of 2016

¶37

The claimants are therefore, entitled to the

¶38

compensation under the following heads:

¶39

	Heads		Co A	mpensation warded by Tribunal	Compensation Awarded by this Court
1.	Loss of dependency	:	Rs.	18,36,000/-	12,85,200/-
2.	Loss of love and affection to the petitioners	:	Rs.	1,00,000/-	1,32,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	:	Rs.	5,000/-	36,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	19,41,000/-	14,53,200/-

¶40

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance

¶41

Company is partly allowed , reducing the compensation amount from Rs.19,41,000/- to Rs.14,53,200/- .

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i) The Appeal is partly allowed reducing the compensation amount from Rs.19,41,000/- to Rs.14,53,200/- .

¶44

ii) The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal.

¶45

iii) The Insurance shall deposit the remaining amount, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12505 MFA No. 6609 of 2016

¶47

of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶48

iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶49

v) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶50

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶51

KA

¶52

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 12 CT: BHK

The Legal Manager v. Manjappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Legal Manager v. Manjappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagaraju Vs Ashwatha

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Radha N K

Shafiulla Vs Halesh Naika

The Branch Manager Vs Sri. Hanumantha

Smt. Monisha S Vs Sri Raghavendra

The Manager Vs Sri E Nagaraj