The Branch Manager Vs Soundarya

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1528/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, 19^TH MACT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, AWARDING

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:22199-DB MFA No. 9115 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 593 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

COMPENSATION OF RS.29,50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶38

IN MFA 593/2022

¶39

BETWEEN:

¶40

SOUNDARYA

W/O LATE LOKA ADARSH

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

R/AT HULIYAR TOWN

C N HALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶45

GANAVI

¶46

AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS D/O LATE LOKA ADARSH AGE ABOUT 10 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP BY

¶47

HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT SOUNDARYA

¶48

W/O LATE LOKA ADARSH

¶49

R/AT HULIYAR TOWN

¶50

C N HALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶51

RAJESHWARI

W/O LOKA PRABHAKAR

AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS

R/AT HULIYAR TOWN

C N HALLI TALUK

TUMKUR DISTRICT.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. M V MAHESWARAPPA.,ADVOCATE)

¶59

4 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:22199-DB MFA No. 9115 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 593 of 2022

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

AND:

¶63

THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD RAGAHVENDRA COLONY, B H RAOD TIPTUR TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572201.

¶64

SRI LOKA PRABHAKAR S/O ANANTHA SETTY AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT OPP KEB NEAR BUS STOP HULIYAR CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 576221 CAR BEARING REG NO KA-3-MF- 3473.

¶65

…RESPONDENTS

¶66

(BY SRI. O MAHESH.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶67

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1528/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND XIX MACT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶68

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

¶69

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and

¶70

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶71

5 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:22199-DB MFA No. 9115 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 593 of 2022

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶75

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

¶76

These appeals are by the concerned Insurer and the claimants. The Insurer and the claimants have called in question the Judgment and Award dated 16.08.2018 in MVC No.1528/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, XIX MACT, Chikkanayakanahalli [for short ' the Tribunal ']. The Insurer's appeal is in MFA No.9115/2018 and the claimants' appeal is in MFA No.593/2022¹ .

¶77

The Tribunal, by the impugned Judgment and Award, has allowed to the claimants a total compensation of Rs.29,50,000/- with interest at of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit holding that the first and the second claimants, [ the wife and the minor daughter of the deceased ] would individually be entitled for 40% of

¶78

1 The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition with the Insurer being referred accordingly.

¶79

6 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:22199-DB MFA No. 9115 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 593 of 2022

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

the compensation and the third claimant, [ the mother of the deceased ] will be entitled to the remaining 20%. The Tribunal has further stipulated that 50% of the amount payable to the first and the third claimants shall be deposited in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank as desired by them and they shall be entitled to withdraw accrued interest periodically, and as regards the second claimant, the amount payable to this claimant is directed to be deposited in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank for a period until this claimant attains majority holding that the first claimant will be entitled to draw interest periodically for the welfare of the minor. The Tribunal has awarded the aforesaid amount of Rs.29,50,000/-

¶83

under the following heads:

¶84

Sl. No.	Heads of compensation	Amount [In Rs.]
1.	Loss of dependency	28,80,000
2.	Funeral expenses	20,000
3.	_Loss of love and affection _	50,000
	TOTAL	29,50,000

¶85

7 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:22199-DB MFA No. 9115 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 593 of 2022

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

3. The deceased, Sri Loka Adarsh, has died

¶89

because of the injuries suffered in a road accident on 02.04.2014, and the car involved in the accident is insured with the Insurer. The claimants have asserted that the second respondent [ the deceased's father ] was driving the car at the time of the accident and that he was rash and negligent. The Insurer has filed its Statement of Objections contending that a false complaint is filed against the second respondent only because the deceased, who was actually driving the car, did not hold a driving license. In fact, it is seen from the Statement of Objections that the Insurer has only stated that the deceased was traveling as a passenger without further asserting that he was driving the car at the time of the accident and he did not possess the driving license.

¶90

The Tribunal has framed Issues that

¶91

required the claimants to show that the deceased died in the road accident because the second

¶92

8 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:22199-DB MFA No. 9115 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 593 of 2022

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

respondent was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. The first claimant has examined herself as PW1, and she has marked Exhibits P1 to P10. These Exhibits are essentially Police records [Exhibits.P1 and P7] and the deceased’s income tax returns [Exhibits.P5 and P6]. The Insurer has examined no witness but has cross-examined the first claimant.

¶96

The Tribunal, in the light of the evidence that is placed on record, has found that the claimants have discharged the burden of establishing that the accident is because the second respondent was rash and negligent in driving observing that the jurisdictional Police have registered a case against the second respondent and Charge sheet is also filed against him and the Insurer has not challenged the same.

¶97

On the question of compensation, the

¶98

Tribunal has decided on the Loss of Dependency taking the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per

¶99

9 -

¶100

NC: 2025:KHC:22199-DB MFA No. 9115 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 593 of 2022

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

month with the first claimant asserting that he was engaged in the hardware business and therefore had substantial income. The Tribunal has deducted onethird of the income so taken towards personal expenses and has multiplied the multiplicand with multiplier ' 18' because the deceased was aged 24 years as of the date of the accident. This Court must observe that the Tribunal has also noted that the second respondent’s driving license is produced as Exhibit P10.

¶103

Sri O Mahesh, the learned counsel for the

¶104

Insurer-appellant, submits that this Court must interfere because the claimants, for staking a claim on the Insurance Company, has substituted the driver viz., the deceased with the second respondent, and the learned counsel canvasses that though the Insurer has examined no witness, this defense is established on the scale of preponderance of probabilities by the claimants’ documents. The

¶105

10 -

¶106

NC: 2025:KHC:22199-DB MFA No. 9115 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 593 of 2022

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

learned counsel takes this Court through the IMV Report [ Exhibit. P3 ] and Postmortem Report [ Exhibit P4 ].

¶109

Sri O Mahesh argues that the IMV Report

¶110

discloses that the damage to the car is on the righthand side and that the nature of the injuries suffered by the deceased indicates that he was on the righthand side of the car. The learned counsel proposes to

¶111

rely upon the complainant’s statement in the proceedings before the Criminal Court to contend that the claimants' case that the second respondent was driving the car is contrived and based on the FIR.

¶112

This Court must, at the outset, observe that the defense that the deceased was driving the car is extraneous to the stand taken in the Statement of Objections. The Insurer has averred in the Statement of objections that a driver was driving the car without a license and that the deceased was a

¶113

11 -

¶114

NC: 2025:KHC:22199-DB MFA No. 9115 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 593 of 2022

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

passenger. This undermines the defense

¶117

substantially, and further the inferences that this Court is called upon to draw from Exhibits P3 and P4 are not put to any of the claimants' witness. The Insurer has not examined any witness who has spoken of such inferences.

¶118

This Court must observe that if either the inference argued [ i .e., the deceased himself was driving the car at the time of the accident] was put to the claimants' witness or the Insurer had examined a witness on such inference, the claimant would have had an adequate opportunity to contest the inference. In the absence of such opportunity, especially when the Insurer has taken no measure to prove its stand, this Court is not persuaded to opine that the inference as is now sought for can be drawn.

¶119

On the ground of quantum of

¶120

compensation, this Court must observe that the claimants have produced no document of income

¶121

12 -

¶122

NC: 2025:KHC:22199-DB MFA No. 9115 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 593 of 2022

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

except the Income Tax Returns [Exhibits P5 and P6]. These are relevant to the financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Claimants’ case that the deceased was engaged in the hardware business is not disputed. The deceased’s annual declared income [ as against the actual income ], according to these Returns, on average will be in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. If there is an addition for loss of future prospects at 40%, the income of the deceased will be around Rs.20,000/per month as is taken by the Tribunal. If the loss of dependency is thus computed, this Court is of the opinion that there is no exaggeration in the Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs.28,80,000/- towards loss of dependency . As such, no interference is called for.

¶125

However, it cannot be gainsaid that the three claimants would be entitled for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per person, and this Court is of the view that because the deceased's daughter [the second claimant] who is only seven

¶126

13 -

¶127

NC: 2025:KHC:22199-DB MFA No. 9115 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 593 of 2022

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

months as of the date of the accident, there must be higher compensation towards loss of consortium to her. This Court opines that in these circumstances, there must be a higher amount, and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- [ as against Rs.1,20,000/- ] would be just and reasonable. However, the claimants will not be entitled to interest for the delay period of 489 days as per the Order of this Court dated 24.01.2025.

¶130

Further, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards funeral expenses. Consequentially, there would be an enhancement in a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. The claimants will thus be entitled to a total sum of Rs.30,60,000/- as against the sum of Rs.29,50,000/- as brought out by the comparative table of the amount awarded by the

¶131

Tribunal and by this Court.

¶132

	By the Tribunal [in Rs.]	By this Court [in Rs.]
Loss of dependency	28,80,000	28,80,000
Loss of consortium	50000	*1,50,000*
[Loss of love and affection]

¶133

14 -

¶134

NC: 2025:KHC:22199-DB MFA No. 9115 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 593 of 2022

¶135

HC-KAR

¶136

Funeral expenses	20,000	*30,000*
Total	29,50,000	*30,60,000*
Enhancement		*1,10,000*

¶137

14. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER

¶138

[a] The Insurer's appeal in MFA No.9115/2018 is dismissed, and the claimants' appeal in MFA No.593/2022 is allowed in part.

¶139

[b] The impugned Judgment and Award dated 16.08.2018 in MVC No.1528/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, XIX MACT, Chikkanayakanahalli is modified granting enhancement of Rs.1,10,000/- [ a total sum of

¶140

Rs.30,60,000/- ] at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till payment. However, the claimants will not be

¶141

15 -

¶142

NC: 2025:KHC:22199-DB MFA No. 9115 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 593 of 2022

¶143

HC-KAR

¶144

entitled to interest for the delayed period

¶145

of 489 days.

¶146

[b] The amount in deposit in the present appeals is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of its directions on apportionment and deposit.

¶147

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶148

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶149

AN/-

The Branch Manager v. Soundarya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Soundarya

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

Abhishek S M @ Abhishek Gowda Vs Kiran Kumar T

Sri P S Jaganath Vs Sri S S Shakuni Gowda

Syed Thousif Ahmed Vs H S Siddaraju

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Javare Gowda

R Subhadramma Vs R Susheela

Legal Manager Vs Smt. Swathi Y