Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Smt. Parvathi

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO. 102 AND 103 CENTRE ROAD 1^ST FLOOR, OPP. TO SANJEEVINI PRESS NEW COTTON MARKET HUBLI HULBI POST DHARWAD DISTRICT – 580 029. REPRESENTED BY ITS BENGALURU OFFICE NO.30, 3^RD FLOOR JNR CITY CENTERE RAJA RAMA MOHAN ROY ROAD SAMPANGIRAMANAGARA BENGALURU – 560 027. REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:8246-DB MFA No. 4148 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4580 of 2022

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

SMT. PARVATHI W/O LATE THIMMAPPA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶20

MASTER THARUSH T. POOJARI S/O. LATE THIMMAPPA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS

¶21

MINOR REPRESENTED BY 1^ST RESPONDENT

¶22

AS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARIAN

¶23

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: ONDELSA, GOLIHOLE VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT

¶24

SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE CHANNAPPA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

¶25

SMT. MOOKAMBU D/O. LATE MANJU POOJARI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶26

MISS SHANTHI POOJARI D/O. LATE MANJU POOJARI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶27

MISS. POORNIMA D/O. SRIDHAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶28

RESPONDENT S NO. 3 TO 6 ARE

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8246-DB MFA No. 4148 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4580 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

RESIDING AT PRASANNA KRIPA ALANDOOR YADTHARE VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT

¶32

SRI. LOLACHARI M.S. S/O. LATE SIDDACHARI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR SWARNAMBA TEMPLE MALLESHWARA VILLAGE KADUR TQ CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 548.

¶33

SRI. NAGARAJ S/O. LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT GUJJENAHALLI VILLAGE ANNIGERI POST KADUR TALUK CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 138.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6;

¶36

SRI. BOPANNA B, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

¶37

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE

¶38

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.489/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:8246-DB MFA No. 4148 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4580 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, (SITTING AT

¶42

KUNDAPURA) AND ETC.,

¶43

IN MFA NO. 4580/2022

¶44

BETWEEN:

¶45

PARVATHI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, W/O LATE THIMMAPPA POOJARI,

¶46

MINOR THARUSH T POOJARI AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMAPPA POOJARI,

¶47

VENKATAMMA

¶48

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, D/O LATE CHANNAPPA POOJARI,

¶49

MOOKAMBU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O LATE MANJU POOJARI,

¶50

MISS SHANTHI POOJARI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, D/O LATE MANJU POOJARI,

¶51

MISS POORNIMA

¶52

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, D/O SRIDHAR NAIK,

¶53

THE APPELLANTS NO.1 IS PERSONALLY AND SHE REPRESENTED A-2 ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR SON AS GUARDIAN MOTHER.

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:8246-DB MFA No. 4148 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4580 of 2022

¶55

5 -

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

THE APPELLANTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT ONDELSA, GOLIHOLE VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101.

¶58

THE APPELLANTS NO.3 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT PRASANNA KRIPA, ALANDOOR, YADTHARE VILLAGE AND POST, BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101.

¶59

...APPELLANTS

¶60

(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE)

¶61

AND:

¶62

LOLACHARI M S

¶63

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O SIDDACHARI, R/O. NEAR SWARNAMBA TEMPLE, MALLESHWARA VILLAGE, KADOORU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 548.

¶64

NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O. LATE. KARIYAPPA, R/O. GUJJENAHALLI VILLAGE, ANNIGERI POST, KADOORU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 138.

¶65

THE ROYAL SUNDARAM GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,

¶66

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:8246-DB MFA No. 4148 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4580 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

102 AND 103, CENTRE ROAD, 1^ST FLOOR, OPP. SANJEEVANI PRESS, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI, HUBLI POST, DHARWAD DISTRICT – 580 029. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶69

...RESPONDENTS

¶70

(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; V/O DATED 10/08/2022, NOTICE TO R1 & R2 D/W)

¶71

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST

¶72

THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 489/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA) AND ETC.,

¶73

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

¶74

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

¶75

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:8246-DB MFA No. 4148 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4580 of 2022

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶78

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

¶79

These appeals have been filed by the

¶80

appellants/claimants and respondent – Insurance Company, therefore, the same is taken up together for consideration.

¶81

The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶82

Factual matrix of the case:

¶83

The case of the claimants is that on 08.04.2019 the deceased – Thimmappa Poojari and Sharada were proceeding on the motorcycle bearing its registration No.KA-20-ES-5355 from Golihole towards Byndoor. The deceased was riding the motorcycle and the petitioner Sharada was a pillion rider. When the motorcycle was proceeding on Yedthare-Kolluru road, near Thondle Bridge, Yalajith Village, around 11.00 a.m., a tempo bearing its registration No.KA-66/1346 came from Byndoor side in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle. Resultantly, the deceased – Thimmappa Poojary and injured Sharada fell down on the ground and sustained injuries. Immediately, the injured were shifted to the

¶84

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:8246-DB MFA No. 4148 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4580 of 2022

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

hospital at Byndoor. Where the hospital authority declared Thimappa Poojary as brought dead and the injured has been treated and later she has been discharged.

¶87

The claimants have approached the Tribunal, the

¶88

Tribunal has awarded Rs.27,41,060/- as compensation in respect of the deceased. The injured was awarded a sum of Rs.3,50,800/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till payment.

¶89

Being aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal, the claimants have approached this Court seeking for enhancement and the Insurance Company has also filed an appeal for challenging the quantum.

¶90

The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that

¶91

the Tribunal ought to have considered the annual income of the deceased was of Rs.25,000/- per month and also ought to have enhanced other heads reasonably in order to secure the ends of justice. However, the Tribunal did not consider the said aspect, therefore, it has to be modified and recalculated by way of enhancing the compensation.

¶92

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:8246-DB MFA No. 4148 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4580 of 2022

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

The learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the income of the deceased has been considered as Rs.13,250/- per month without any evidence. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has committed error in considering 40% of the future prospectus and also enhanced other heads unreasonably/arbitrarily without following the settled principles of law. Therefore, the compensation has to be reduced.

¶95

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it is to be noted that the date of the accident is on 08.04.2019. The deceased was aged about 38 years. Though, the Tribunal had considered the income of the deceased for a sum of Rs.13,250/-, we deem it appropriate to enhance Rs.750/- and adjust it for a sum of Rs.14,000/-. Further, the loss of consortium has been considered for three members, which would come to a sum of Rs.1,20,000/. With the said changes stated supra , we modified the table, which is under:

¶96

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:8246-DB MFA No. 4148 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 4580 of 2022

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

Sl. No.	Particulars	Award (in Ru	Amount pees)
		Tribunal	This Court
01	Loss of dependency (14,000 + 40% x 12 x 1/3 x 15)	22,22,060/-	23,52,000/-
02	Loss of love and affection	2,00,000/-	-
03	Loss of estate	1,00,000/-	15,000/-
04	Funeral expenses	15,000/-	15,000/-
05	Loss of consortium	2,00,000/-	1,20,000/-
	TOTAL	27,41,060/-	25,02,000/-

¶99

In view of the modified compensation stated supra ,

¶100

the appeal filed by the Insurance Company has to be allowed in-part.

¶101

In the light of the observations made above, we

¶102

proceed to pass the following:

¶103

ORDER

¶104

i. Both appeals are allowed in-part .

¶105

ii. The judgment and award passed by the learned Additional District Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura), Kundapura is modified, granting compensation of Rs.25,02,000/- as against Rs.27,41,060/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶106