United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs R.Krishnamurthy

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., CHAMARAJANAGARA BRANCH THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE NO.18 5TH AND 6TH FLOORS KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE -560 001 REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

R.KRISHNAMURTHY

¶19

S/O LATE S.M.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT ARALAHALLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶20

R.JAYAMARI W/O LATE S.M.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT G.V.GOWDANAGARA

¶21

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26999 MFA No. 2965 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2894 of 2022

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

MADUVANAHALLI, KOLLEGALA TALUK

¶24

LAKSHMI DEVAMMA W/O CHANDRASHEKARA D/O LATE S.M.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.164 NEAR SANESHWARA TEMPLE IBBALURU, BANGALORE SOUTH HSR LAYOUT BANGALORE.

¶25

R.MANJU SWAMY S/O LATE S.M.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.71 2ND CROSS BAVI ROAD VINAYA NAGARA, PADUVARAHALLI MYSORE.

¶26

SHIVAMMA D/O LATE S.M.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT SUVARNAVATHI BEEDI MAMBALLI VILLAGE YELANDURU TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT

¶27

M/S YEPIYES FASHION NO.1357 OPPOSITE TO RAILWAY STATION NANJANGUD ROAD CHAMARAJANAGARA

¶28

(OWNER OF TEMPO NO.KA-10-A-1187)

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI.SREENIVASAN M.Y., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-5; NOTICE TO R-6 SD UNREPRESENTED)

¶31

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.12.2021 PASSED IN MVC

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26999 MFA No. 2965 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2894 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

NO.459/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M. MACT, CHAMARAJANAGAR.

¶35

IN MFA NO. 2894/2022

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

R.KRISHNAMURTHY

¶38

S/O LATE S.M.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT ARALAHALLI, PANDAVAPURA TQ, MANDYAM DISTRICT 571 436.

¶39

R.JAYAMARI,

¶40

W/O LATE S.M.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT G.V.GOWDANAGARA, MADUVANAHALLI, KOLLEGALA TQ, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571 441.

¶41

LAKSHMI DEVAMMA, W/O CHANDRASHEKARA, D/O LATE S.M.RAMAIH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.164, NEAR SANESHWARA TEMPLE, IBBALURU, BENGALURU SOUTH, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 066.

¶42

R.MANJU SWAMY, S/O LATE S.M.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT 71, 2ND CROSS ROAD,

¶43

BAVI ROAD, VINAYA NAGARA, PADUVARAHALLI, MYSURU - 570 023.

¶44

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26999 MFA No. 2965 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2894 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

SHIVAMMA

¶47

D/O LATE S.M RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT SUVARNAVATHI BEEDI, MAMBALLI VIALLAGE, YELANDURU TQ,

¶48

CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 571 441.

¶49

...APPELLANTS

¶50

(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y., ADVOCATE)

¶51

AND:

¶52

M/S YEPIYES FASHION NO.1357, OPP. RAILWAY STATION, NANJANGUD ROAD, CHAMARAJANAGAR, 571 441.

¶53

THE BRANCH OFFICE, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.305, ATCHAM MANSION, SOUTHERN EXTN, KOLLEGALA TOWN, KOLLEGALA TQ, CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT 571 440.

¶54

...RESPONDENTS

¶55

(BY SRI.JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 D/W)

¶56

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.12.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.459/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHAMARAJANAGAR.

¶57

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

¶58

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26999 MFA No. 2965 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2894 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶61

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶62

MFA.No.2965/2022 is by the Insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 18.12.2021 passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.459/2017, whereas MFA.No.2894/2022 is by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶63

It is not in dispute that, as a result of the motor

¶64

vehicle accident which occurred on 01.11.2017, Basamma w/o late S.M.Ramaiah, a 80 year old died.

¶65

It is not in dispute that the Insurer is liable to pay the compensation as the offending vehicle was insured. However, learned counsel for the Insurer has contended that the Tribunal, without considering the age of the deceased i.e., 80 years, has wrongly assessed the notional income at Rs.10,250/- and has wrongly deducted 1/4^th towards personal expenses since the claimants were not at all the dependents of the deceased. Further, since the loss of consortium inherently includes the deprivation of love and affection, the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation under both the heads namely loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Thus, the

¶66

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:26999 MFA No. 2965 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2894 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

award of compensation by the Tribunal under all the heads is on the higher side and the same requires interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the Insurer.

¶69

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the claimants has contended that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are meager and the same requires to be enhanced by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the claimants.

¶70

The Tribunal, on assessment of the evidence adduced before it, has come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident which has resulted in the death of Basamma. The Tribunal has thereafter proceeded to award the following sums as compensation:

¶71

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount in (Rs.)
1.	Medical expenses	66,818
2.	Loss of Dependency	4,61,220
3.	Loss of Consortium	2,00,000
3.	Loss of love and affection	2,50,000

¶72

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:26999 MFA No. 2965 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2894 of 2022

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

4.	Loss of estate	15,000
5.	Transportation and funeral expenses	25,000
	Total	10,18,038

¶75

In order to arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income, notionally at Rs.10,250/-. As there is no credible evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2017, would be Rs.11,000/-.

¶76

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Insurer, since the claimants are not the dependents of the deceased, it would be just and appropriate to deduct 50% towards personal expenses, which would make her income to be Rs.5,500/- (Rs.11,000 - 50%). The income of the deceased for the purposes of determining the loss of dependency would thus be Rs.5,500/- .

¶77

As the deceased was aged 80 years, a multiplier of ' 5' would have to be applied.

¶78

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:26999 MFA No. 2965 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2894 of 2022

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a

¶81

sum of Rs.3,30,000/- (5,500 x 12 x 5) towards “ loss of dependency” .

¶82

The claimants, being the family members of the deceased, they would each be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,000/- towards “loss of consortium” i.e., in all Rs.2,40,000/- (48,000 x 5) and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,000/- under the “conventional heads” . The amount of Rs.2,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection, in my view, is not just and proper, since the loss of consortium includes deprivation of love and affection.

¶83

Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums:

¶84

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount (In Rs.)
1.	Loss of Dependency	3,30,000
2.	Loss of Consortium	2,40,000
3.	Conventional Heads	36,000
4.	Medical expenses	66,818
	Total	6,72,818

¶85

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:26999 MFA No. 2965 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2894 of 2022

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

Thus, the claimants would be entitled for

¶88

compensation of Rs.6,72,818/- as against Rs.10,18,038/awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶89

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶90