The Manager Vs Smt Munirathnamma

THE MANAGER HDFC ERGO GIC. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.2/1-1, 2^ND FLOOR, 11^TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE NOW REP. BYITS THE MANAGER HDFC ERGO GIC. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE #25/1, 2^ND FLOOR, BUILDING NO.2 SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADV.)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶18

MASTER VISHWAS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

¶19

BOTH ARE R/AT GANDARAJAPURA VILLAGE THUBUGERE HOBI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGLAORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶20

BALAKRISHNA A S/O AVALAPPA R/O HUNEGALLU GUNDLAGURKI VILLAGE

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:37340-DB MFA No. 7470 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

CNR: KAHC010565342023

¶25

CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. V SHIVAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R3 R1 AND R2- SERVED)

¶28

THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.05.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.59/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE 4^TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.31,43,888/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

¶31

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶34

The insurer is in appeal questioning the quantum of compensation granted to respondents/claimants under the judgment and award dated 24.05.2023 in MVC.No.59/2021

¶35

on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶36

Heard the learned counsel Sri.B.Pradeep for

¶37

appellant/insurer and learned counsel Sri.V.Shivakumar for

¶38

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37340-DB MFA No. 7470 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

CNR: KAHC010565342023

¶41

respondent No.3. Perused the appeal papers as well as the Tribunal records.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit

¶43

that the insurance company in this appeal is not disputing the accident or the manner of accident. However, it is submitted that the insurance company in the present appeal is disputing the quantum of compensation. Learned counsel Sri.B.Pradeep would submit that the deceased was aged 18 years and was unmarried. The claimants are mother and brother of the deceased. It is submitted that

¶44

the Tribunal committed grave error in adapting deduction of 1/3^rd instead of 50%, since the deceased was a bachelor.

¶45

Further, learned counsel for the

¶46

appellant/insurer would submit that the Tribunal committed grave error in awarding Rs.50,000/- on the head of ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.1,00,000/- on the head of ‘loss of love and affection’. Learned counsel would submit that in terms of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL

¶47

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:37340-DB MFA No. 7470 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

CNR: KAHC010565342023

¶50

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI & OTHERS¹ , the claimants would be entitled for only Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and further submits that the claimants would not be entitled for compensation on the head of ‘loss of love and affection’. However, learned counsel would submit that both the claimants would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each on the head of ‘consortium’. Learned counsel would submit that the notional income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.14,750/- is on the higher side, as the notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the year 2020 is Rs.14,500/p.m. Thus, he would pray for re-assessing the notional income of the deceased.

¶51

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire appeal papers, the following points would arise for our consideration:

¶52

1 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶53

5 -

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:37340-DB MFA No. 7470 of 2023

¶56

CNR: KAHC010565342023

¶57

a) Whether the monthly income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.14,750/- is proper and correct?

¶58

b) Whether the Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/3^rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, as he was a bachelor?

¶59

Answer to the above points would be in the

¶60

Negative for the following reasons:

¶61

The claimants have not placed on record any material to establish the income of the deceased. In the absence of any material to establish the monthly income, it is for the Tribunal to assess income notionally. The notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority for the accident of the year 2020 is Rs.14,500/-. As such, the Tribunal is not justified in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.14,750/- p.m. Taking note of the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, we re-assess the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.14,500/- p.m.

¶62

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:37340-DB MFA No. 7470 of 2023

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

CNR: KAHC010565342023

¶65

The deceased was aged 18 years and he was a

¶66

bachelor. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have deducted 1/3^rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. In terms of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v/s DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER² , for a bachelor, deduction would be 50% towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to deduct 50% of the assessed income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. In view of the above, claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation on the head of ‘loss of dependency’ as under:

¶67

Rs.(14500+5800-50%)X12X18= Rs.21,92,400/-.

¶68

The Tribunal committed a grave error in awarding Rs.50,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on the head of ‘love and affection’. The claimants would be entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss

¶69

2 AIR 2009 SC 3104

¶70

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:37340-DB MFA No. 7470 of 2023

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

CNR: KAHC010565342023

¶73

of estate’ in terms of PRANAY SETHI (supra). The claimants would be entitled for Rs.40,000/each towards ‘consortium’. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for the

¶74

following modified compensation:

¶75

Sl.No.	PARTICULARS	AMOUNT
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs. 21,92,400/-
2.	Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000 each)	Rs. 80,000/-
3.	Loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
4.	Transportation and Funeral expenses	Rs. 20,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 22,07,400/-

¶76

Thus, the claimants would be entitled to a total

¶77

compensation of Rs.22,07,400/- as against Rs.31,43,888/awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization.

¶78

In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

a) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶81

b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.22,07,400/as against Rs.31,43,888/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶82

8 -

¶83

NC: 2026:KHC:37340-DB MFA No. 7470 of 2023

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

CNR: KAHC010565342023

¶86

c) The entire compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization.

¶87

d) The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶88