M/S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt Manjula

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED.03.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.856/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-13), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.44,18,420/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PER CENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and

¶33

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶36

This appeal is by the Insurer who is called upon to pay compensation to the parents and a sibling of the deceased who has died on 11.11.2016 in a road

¶37

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28585-DB MFA No. 8163 of 2019

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

accident. The claimants’ petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 is in MVC No. 856/2017 on the file of Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT Bengaluru [for short, ‘ the Tribunal’ ]. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.44,18,420/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition to the date of deposit. Both Sri. B. Pradeep and Sri. M. H. Prakash, the learned counsel for the Insurer and the claimants are categorical that the only question that should be decided in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has granted exaggerated compensation, and otherwise, there is no dispute on the facts leading to the claim petition.

¶40

Sri. B. Pradeep submits that the

¶41

Tribunal has taken the income of Sri Balaji P., the deceased, at Rs.4,85,381/- based on his Income Tax Returns – ITR [Exs.P14 and P15] though these Returns are filed two weeks after the date of the accident and that there is no evidence that the

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:28585-DB MFA No. 8163 of 2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

deceased was indeed in any business. The learned counsel invites this Court's attention to the further exhibits and canvasses that the income declared for tax is only rental income and no other income, and if there is any loss, it would only be supervisory costs as the family will continue to have the assets and the rental income.

¶45

Sri M.H. Prakash canvasses that this

¶46

Court must consider that the deceased was 23 years old and hailed from a well-to-do family with rental income of Rs.9,00,000/- and these circumstances probabilizes that the deceased was indeed engaged in dealing with imported bikes to supplement his income. Sri. M.H. Prakash also submits that this Court must ensure, if there is any reduction in the award towards loss of dependency, that there is just compensation towards loss of consortium and funeral and other expenses. When heard in rejoinder Sri. B Pradeep does not dispute that the claimants would be

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28585-DB MFA No. 8163 of 2019

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

entitled for consortium on their individual account apart from Rs.30,000/- towards funeral and other expenses.

¶50

considered, and the records are perused. The statement of income annexed to the ITR indeed speaks only of the deceased’s rental income and no other income. The claimants have not placed on record any evidence from which there could be a reasonable inference that the deceased was engaged in dealing in imported bikes, which must be a niche business. There cannot be any inference in the absence of evidence. The claimants have indeed lost the superintendence if the deceased had survived, and this must be a material factor. The notional income that is taken for deciding compensation in the claim petitions arising out of accidents in the year 2016 is Rs.9,500/- and that there must be appropriate addition to this amount.

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28585-DB MFA No. 8163 of 2019

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

This Court, on a careful

¶54

consideration of all the circumstances, is of the opinion that loss of dependency to the claimants must be decided taking the income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- per month with addition of 40% thereof towards future prospects deducting one-half towards personal expenses of the deceased and capitalizing the multiplicand with ‘ 18 ’. The loss of dependency when so computed would be in a sum of Rs.16,63,200/- as against the sum of Rs.43,68,420/awarded by the Tribunal and the computation is as follows.

¶55

Details for Computation of Loss of Dependency		Amount in Rs.
MonthlyIncome		11,000
Addition towards Future Prospects	40%	4,400
Monthly Income + Future Prospects		15,400
Annual Income	12	1,84,800
Deduction towards personal expenses	50%	92,400
Multiplicand [after deduction towards personal Expenses]		92,400

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:28585-DB MFA No. 8163 of 2019

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Multiplier 18	16,63,200
Loss of Dependency	16,63,200

¶59

In addition, the claimants must be

¶60

granted loss of consortium at Rs.80,000/- with funeral and other expenses at a sum of Rs.30,000/-, resulting in a total compensation of Rs.17,73,200/apart from the medical expenses of Rs.20,000/-. The compensation would be in a sum of Rs.17,93,200/as against Rs.44,18,420/-. The computation of the compensation as aforesaid is brought out by this comparative table of the amount as decided by the

¶61

Tribunal and as decided by this Court.

¶62

	By the Tribunal [in Rs.]	By this Court [in Rs.]
Towards loss of dependency	43,68,420.00	*16,63,200.00*
Towards loss of _consortium _	15,000.00	*80,000.00*
Towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses	15,000.00	*30,000.00*
Towards medical expenses	20,000.00	20,000.00
*Total*	*44,18,420.00*	*17,93,200*

¶63

8 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:28585-DB MFA No. 8163 of 2019

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

At this stage, it is submitted that a sum of Rs.27,98,065/- is in deposit with the Tribunal from 21.11.2021. As such the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

[A] The appeal is allowed-in-part modifying the impugned judgment and award dated 03.04.2019 in MVC No.856/2017 restricting the compensation to a sum of Rs.17,93,200/- along with interest at rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition to deposit.

¶69

[B] The Appellant–Insurer is called upon to compute the interest and deposit the amount if there is any shortfall within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certificate copy of this order. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the compensation to the claimants in terms of its decision on apportionment.

¶70

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:28585-DB MFA No. 8163 of 2019

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

[C] If there is any surplus, the Tribunal is directed to disburse the compensation to the claimants in terms of its decision on apportionment and return the surplus to the Insurer.

¶73

[D] The statutory amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement/ refund as aforesaid.

¶74

[E] The Registry is also directed to transmit the records.

¶75

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶76

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶77

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

M/S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt Manjula

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

Mrs. Apoorva S Kini, Vs Mr. Rithesh Prabhu

Srikanth M N Vs Divya R

Smt. Vanajakshi Vs Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd

Keshava Murthy Vs Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt Nagamma

Smt. Lakshminarasamma Vs Sri. Bharathkumar. v. K.