The Manager Liberty General Insurnace Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Anusha

M/S. LIBERTY GENERAL INSURNACE CO. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,) PRESENTLY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 21/15, <THE LANDMARK= 4^TH FLOOR NEAR TRINITY METRO STATION MG ROAD BENGALURU 3 560 001 REP. BY MANAGER

¶17

&APPELLANT

¶18

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

SMT. ANUSHA W/O LATE MANJUNATHA H S AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶21

MASTER NISCHITH S.M. S/O. LATE MANJUNATHA H S AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS

¶22

2 -

¶23

MFA No. 7005 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023

¶24

MASTER PREETHAM S M S/O LATE MANJUNATH H S AGED 2 YEARS

¶25

SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 1^ST RESPONDENT

¶26

SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O. HANUMANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶27

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.3, SRIGIRIPURA MAGADI TALUK BENGALUGU RURAL DISTRICT

¶28

MANJUNATH R S/O. LATE RAMASWAMY SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE

¶29

5(a) SMT. BANNAMMA B W/O. LATE MANJUNATH R AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.12/2, 10^TH CROSS JAI MARUTHI NAGAR NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU 3 560 096.

¶30

&RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MUNIYAPPA C R GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1-R4; SRI. R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶31

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.28.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.2459/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-14) AND ETC.,

¶32

3 -

¶33

MFA No. 7005 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023

¶34

IN MFA NO. 2185/2023

¶35

BETWEEN:

¶36

SMT. ANUSHA W/O LATE MANJUNATH H.S. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶37

MASTER NISCHITH S.M. S/O. LATE MANJUNATHA H.S. AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS

¶38

MASTER PREETHAM S.M. S/O LATE MANJUNATHA S.M. AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS

¶39

SMT.SHARADAMMA W/O HANUMANTHARAJU AGED 50 YEARS,

¶40

SINCE APPELLANT NOS.2 & 3 ARE MINORS, REPTD. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. ANUSHA-APPELLANT NO.1

¶41

ALL ARE R/AT NO.3, SRIGIRIPURA, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶42

...APPELLANTS

¶43

(BY SRI. RAJU S, ADVOCATE)

¶44

AND:

¶45

SRI. MANJUNATHA .R S/O LATE RAMASWAMY,

¶46

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR.,

¶47

1(a) SMT. BANNAMMA B W/O. LATE MANJUNATH R

¶48

4 -

¶49

MFA No. 7005 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023

¶50

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.12/2, 10^TH CROSS JAI MARUTHI NAGAR NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU 3 560 096.

¶51

LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., OFFICE NO.1, ALYASA, 1^ST FLOOR REAR PORTION, OLD NO.28 NEW NO.23, RICHMOND ROAD BENGALURU - 25 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶52

...RESPONDENTS

¶53

(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR LR., OF R1)

¶54

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.2459/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-14) AND ETC.,

¶55

THESE APPEALS, HAVING BEEN RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, S RACHAIAH J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶56

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

¶57

5 -

¶58

MFA No. 7005 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023

¶59

CAV JUDGMENT

¶60

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

¶61

Heard Sri Raju S., learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ravi S.Samprathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri R. Shashidhara, learned counsel for legal heir of deceased respondent No.1 in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2185/2023.

¶62

Heard Sri Ravi S. Samprathi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Muniyappa C.R. Gowda, learned counsel for C/respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri R. Shashidhara, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7005/2021.

¶63

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2185/2023 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28.10.2021 in MVC No.2459/2019 passed by the XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-14) (for short 8Tribunal9), whereas, Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7005/2021 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum and liability of the Insurer.

¶64

6 -

¶65

MFA No. 7005 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023

¶66

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

¶67

The factual matrix of the case is as under:

¶68

On 04.09.2018 at about 10.30 p.m., Manjunath was proceeding as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing its registration No.KA.02.HK.5635 with his relative from Dabaspet towards Sreegiripura. It is further stated that the said motorcycle was being driven by its rider at a very high speed, recklessly and in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, without observing the traffic rules and regulations. When the said motorcycle reached near Honnenahalli Thandya, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, the rider of the motorcycle, without observing the road hump, lost his control over the vehicle, as a result of which, the pillion rider was thrown off from the motorcycle, consequently, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries on head, left shoulder, face and other parts of the body. He was shifted to Sparsh Hospital as an indoor-patient and then, shifted to Basavashree Diagnostics and then, shifted to Sparsh Hospital. However, he succumbed to the injuries on 23.02.2019.

¶69

7 -

¶70

MFA No. 7005 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023

¶71

The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased Manjunath, approached the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs.32,56,100/along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization.

¶72

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2185/2023

¶73

Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶74

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was running a barbershop and he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, the said fact ought to have been considered by the Tribunal. However, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.9,000/- per month, which needs to be enhanced. Similarly, the medical expenditure borne by the deceased was more than Rs.20,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal awarded a meagre amount as medical expenditure that needs to be modified.

¶75

It is further submitted that the compensation under other heads ought to have been enhanced by the

¶76

8 -

¶77

MFA No. 7005 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023

¶78

Tribunal in accordance with the settled principles of law. Having failed to enhance the said compensation, resulted in filing of this appeal. Therefore, the compensation has to be re-determined as per the records produced before the Tribunal by allowing this appeal. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prays to allow the appeal.

¶79

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company vehemently submitted that, in fact, both the quantum and liability are disputed and a separate appeal has been filed challenging the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is against to the settled principles of law and hence, the same has to be reduced. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 prays to reject the appeal.

¶80

Be that as it may, the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased is of Rs.9,000/- per month. However, there is no justification for considering the said income. In fact, the accident occurred on 04.09.2018. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

¶81

9 -

¶82

MFA No. 7005 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023

¶83

claimants that the deceased was working as a Barber and he was earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month. Having considered the said aspect, we deem it appropriate to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- per month.

¶84

Further, it has also been considered that the appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased Manjunath, and there are four dependants in all. Therefore, 1/4^th of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards personal expenditure. The Tribunal has deducted accordingly. Hence, there is no irregularity in the said deduction.

¶85

Further, the loss of consortium had to be considered by the Tribunal as per the settled principle of law, i.e., Rs.40,000/- per person.

¶86

Having considered the said aspects and also after having gone through the medical bills produced by the appellants before the Tribunal, we modify the award, as stated below in the table:-

¶87

10 -

¶88

MFA No. 7005 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023

¶89

15. The modified table is as under:

¶90

Sl. No	Particulars	Award (in Ru	amount pees)
.		Tribunal	This Court
01	Loss of dependency [14,000+5600=19600x12x17 x1/4=29,98,800/-]	19,27,800	29,98,800
02	Medical expenditure till death	12,58,300	12,58,300
03	Loss of Consortium [40000x4]	40,000	1,60,000
04	Loss of Estate	15,000	15,000
05	Funeral Expenses	15,000	15,000
	TOTAL	32,56,100	44,47,100

¶91

Therefore, we have enhanced the compensation as per the chart stated above. The enhanced compensation has to be divided as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal.

¶92

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7005/2021

¶93

Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company challenged the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, stating that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the deceased was traveling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle.

¶94

It is further stated that, the deceased himself was riding

¶95

the motorcycle as per Ex.R1 3 MNC report. The motorcycle got skidded. The rider had fallen from the

¶96

11 -

¶97

MFA No. 7005 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023

¶98

motorcycle and he had sustained injuries. The selfaccident of the rider has been wrongly converted into that of a pillion rider, which is far from the truth. Therefore, the liability to pay the said amount would not arise.

¶99

To substantiate the said contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following judgments:-

¶100

i) Ningamma v. United India Insurance Company Limited¹

¶101

ii) National Insurance Company Limited v. Ashalata Bhowmik & Others²

¶102

iii) The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Jyothi & Others³

¶103

iv) National Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan & Another⁴

¶104

v) New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani & Others⁵

¶105

Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants justified the award passed by the Tribunal in respect of the liability. However, he has disputed the quantum

¶106

1 LAWS (SC) 2009 5 218

¶107

2 AIR 2018 SC 4133

¶108

3 MFA 2306/2023 dated 18.03.2025

¶109

4 2013 ACJ 199

¶110

5 2003 ACJ 1

¶111

12 -

¶112

MFA No. 7005 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023

¶113

awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the loss of dependency and consortium.

¶114

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal insofar as the liability of the appellant is concerned, it is an undisputed fact that the names of the rider and pillion rider are one and the same. A complaint came to be registered by the complainant stating that the rider and pillion rider were proceeding on the motorcycle, and the rider of the motorcycle had made the motorcycle to jump on the road hump, due to his negligence. Consequently, the pillion rider fell down on the road and had sustained injuries. It is an admitted fact that a mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P2 which indicates that there was a road hump at the place where the accident had occurred.

¶115

It is needless to state that, the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation. It is made and enacted for the purpose of awarding the compensation to sufferers who suffered injuries and also death of the family members in a road accident. When the eyewitnesses have stated

¶116

13 -

¶117

MFA No. 7005 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023

¶118

that the rider and the pillion rider were proceeding on the motorcycle, and both persons are named as Manjunatha, the liability certainly would be fixed on the Insurance Company. Hence, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability and the quantum needs to be dismissed.

¶119

In the light of the observations made above, we proceed to pass the following:-

¶120

ORDER

¶121

i) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2185/2023 filed by the appellants/claimants is allowed-in-part.

¶122

ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C. No.2459/2019 dated 28.10.2021 is modified. The claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.44,47,100/- (Rupees Forty Four Lakh Forty Seven Thousand One Hundred only) as against Rs.32,56,100/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation of Rs.11,91,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization.

¶123

14 -

¶124

MFA No. 7005 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 2185 of 2023

¶125

iii) The Insurance Company / respondent No.2 in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2185/2023 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount together with interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶126