Manjushree H S Vs the Divisional Controller

THE CLAIM MANAGER TATA AIG INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., NO.69, II FLOOR, J. P. AND DEVI JAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE, MILLER ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶37

...APPELLANT

¶38

(BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

¶39

AND:

¶40

H. S. MANJUSHRI

¶41

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, D/O. SOMASHEKARAPPA,

¶42

H. S. NATESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O. SOMASHEKARAPPA,

¶43

BOTH R/O. GUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶44

THE REGIONAL CONTROLLER

¶45

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10576-DB MFA No. 543 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 1103 of 2019

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

MANGALORE DIVISION, MANGALORE - 575 001.

¶48

REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLER, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶49

ABDUL KHADAR MAJOR, S/O. YUSAFF, R/O. DEVARUNDA VILLAGE AND POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 101.

¶50

...RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SRI. H.J. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3 & R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶52

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED11.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.646/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, IN HASSAN AND ETC.,

¶53

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS

¶54

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶55

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

¶56

5 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:10576-DB MFA No. 543 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 1103 of 2019

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶60

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

¶61

MFA No.543/2021 is filed by the claimants/appellants seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11.12.2018 in MVC No.646/2016 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T, at Hassan (for short ‘Tribunal’), whereas, MFA No.1103/2019 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the validity of liability of the insurer.

¶62

The ranks of the parties before the Tribunal will be considered henceforth for convenience.

¶63

The factual matrix of the case is as under:

¶64

The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that, the mother of the claimants was working as Head Mistress at Government Higher Primary School situated at Nidanuru, Aluru Taluk, Hassan District. On 11.04.2016, around 3.30 p.m., after having finished her work in the school,

¶65

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10576-DB MFA No. 543 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 1103 of 2019

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

in order to go to Hassan, she was waiting in the bus stand for the bus. In the meantime, the driver of the bus bearing its registration No.KA-19-F-3070 in order to over take the auto bearing its registration No.KA-18-A1171, drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the auto. The said auto had toppled on the mother of the claimants. Consequently, she had sustained grievous injuries on her head. She was shifted to the Government Hospital at Hassan, however, she was declared as dead.

¶68

The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition, granting compensation of Rs.25,63,680/- with interest at 8% per annum by fastening liability on the Insurance Company.

¶69

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has passed an award which is not in consonance with the settled principles of law. The personal expenditure of the appellants ought to have been deducted as 1/3^rd , future prospects has to be 15%

¶70

7 -

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:10576-DB MFA No. 543 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 1103 of 2019

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

instead of 10% and consortium / love and affection ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal. Having not considered the above said facts, the award passed by the Tribunal has to be modified.

¶74

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and prays to reject the appeal.

¶75

The learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.1103/2019 contended that the judgment and award of the Tribunal is contrary to the law and material on record. The findings of the Tribunal that the alleged incident was due to negligence of the driver of the auto alone is contrary to law and evidence on record.

¶76

The Tribunal has failed to take note of the fact that the omission and commission on the part of KSRTC bus alone was resultant cause for unfortunate accident. In fact, it is stated that the KSRTC bus in a bid to overtake the auto, dashed the auto, resultantly, the auto has toppled on the deceased who was on the road side.

¶77

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:10576-DB MFA No. 543 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 1103 of 2019

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

However, the said aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal.

¶80

It is further submitted that the Tribunal has passed an order directing the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company to pay the entire amount is unsustainable for the reason that the liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company.

¶81

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. On going through the findings of the Tribunal, there is no disagreement in respect of the deduction of personal expenditure of the deceased taken by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal ought to have considered 15% of the income towards the future prospects. As the Tribunal has failed to take note of the said aspect, we deem it appropriate to consider the future prospects and also it is appropriate to consider the consortium keeping in mind the two dependents. Hence, we modify the compensation as per the changed circumstances stated above.

¶82

The modified table is as under:

¶83

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:10576-DB MFA No. 543 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 1103 of 2019

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

Sl. No	Particulars	Award (in R	amount upees)
.		Tribunal	This Court
01	Loss of dependency 21,327+15%x12x9	25,33,680	26,48,813
02	Loss of Estate	15,000	15,000
03	Transportation charges	15,000	------
04	Loss of consortium	----	80,000
	TOTAL	25,63,680	27,43,813

¶86

In the light of the observations made above, the

¶87

enhanced amount has to be apportioned as per the order of the Tribunal.

¶88

As we have already held that the liability is on the respondent No.3 / Insurance Company, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company has to be rejected.

¶89

In the light of the observations made above, we modify the compensation as stated above. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

¶90

ORDER

¶91

i) MFA No.543/2021 is allowed in part. ii) MFA No.1103/2019 is dismissed.

¶92

iii) The judgment and award dated 11.12.2018 in MVC No.646/2016 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil

¶93

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:10576-DB MFA No. 543 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 1103 of 2019

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

Judge and M.A.C.T, at Hassan, is modified, granting compensation of Rs.27,43,813/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirteen only) as against Rs.25,63,680/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization.

¶96

iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the deposited amount, if any, to the Tribunal, for necessary action.

¶97

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶98

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶99

UN

¶100

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Manjushree H S v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjushree H S v. the Divisional Controller

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

Shri K v Venkataramanappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Susheel Kumar Vs the Station House Officer (Sho)

M/S Iffco-Tokio Gic Ltd., Vs Sri. Babu

Skanda Residency Vs Sri. M. B. Karthik

The Karnataka State Coir Development Corporation Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri Prasanna Kumar a v