Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Smt Monisha S K on 31 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30291-DB
MFA No. 601/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.601/2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
PANCHAJANYA TOWER, 2ND FLOOR,
NO.1022/33, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 010.
NOW REP. BY ITS MANAGER
M/S ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD,
REGIONAL OFFICE, THE ESTATE,
9TH FLOOR DICKENSON ROAD,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 42 ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by A K 1. SMT. MONISHA S.K.,
CHANDRIKA W/O LAKSHMINARAYANA. R.
Location: AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
High Court of
Karnataka
2. BABY DUVITHA
D/O LAKSHMINARAYANA R.
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REPT. BY HER MOTHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. MONISHA. S.K.
3. SRI. K.E. RAJEGOWDA
S/O EREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
4. SMT. T.SUSHILAMMA
W/O K.E. RAJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30291-DB
MFA No. 601/2023
ALL ARE R/AT
VOLAMBIGE VILLAGE, SINGAPURA POST,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211.
SRI. HARISH D.K.,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
5. SHASHANK
S/O LATE HARISH
FLAT NO.77, 2ND FLOOR,
DHRUVAH APARTMENT,
RMV 2ND STAGE, SANJAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 094 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P. NATARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 AND R4;
R2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1;
R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.09.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.2727/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE
XVII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER,
MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-21, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Though this matter has come up for admission, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30291-DB MFA No. 601/2023
2. "Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants under the impugned award is just?" is the question to be involved in this appeal.
3. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 were claimants, appellant was respondent No.1 and respondent No.5 was respondent No.2 in MVC No.2727/2021 on the file of the XVII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Mayohall, Bangalore. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.
4. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant No.2 is the daughter and claimant Nos.3 & 4 are the parents of deceased Lakshminarayana. On 23.12.2020 at 8.45 p.m., when deceased Lakshminarayana was travelling in Volvo Car bearing No.KA-02- ML-5670 on NH42, near Chikkagurki Village, on Uravakonda- Bellary road, the said car capsized and in that accident, Lakshminarayana suffered grievous injuries. He was shifted to Anushka Hospital, Ballary and from there, he was shifted to Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore. There he was treated as in-patient upto 17.01.2021. On 17.01.2021, he succumbed to the injuries.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:30291-DB MFA No. 601/2023
5. At the relevant point of time, respondent No.2 was the registered owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The claimants filed claim petition in MVC No.2727/2021 contending that the accident and consequent death of Lakshminarayana occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of respondent No.2 and they were dependent on the income of the deceased. He was an agriculturist and earning Rs.1 Lakh per month. They also spent huge amount towards medical expenses and therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs.3,50,00,000/-.
6. It appears that respondent No.2 has also suffered injuries in the accident and died. Therefore, his son was impleaded as his legal representative. Respondent No.2 did not contest the petition at all. Respondent No.1-Insurer did not seriously dispute the occurrence of the accident due to negligence on the part of deceased respondent No.2. However, it disputed the age occupation and income of the deceased and quantum of compensation claimed.
7. The Tribunal after recording the evidence of the claimants and respondent No.1 and on hearing the parties, by the impugned award held that accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of the deceased second -5- NC: 2024:KHC:30291-DB MFA No. 601/2023 respondent. The Tribunal considered the age of the deceased at 34 years and notionally assessed his income at Rs.20,000/- per month added future prospects at 40%, deducted 1/4th from the same for personal expenses, applied the multiplier of '16' and awarded total compensation of Rs.54,57,920/- on different heads as follows:
Towards love and affection Rs. 60,000/- Towards funeral expenses & Rs. 15,000/- transportation charges Towards loss of dependency Rs.40,32,000/-
Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Towards loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/-
Towards filial consortium Rs. 40,000/-
Towards medical expenses Rs.12,55,920/-
Total Rs.54,57,920/-
8. The Insurer has challenged the award solely on the ground that notional income considered by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
9. Counsel for the claimants/respondents also concede that there was no proof of income. In para 23 of the impugned award Tribunal itself states that there was no proof of actual income and therefore, it adopted notional income as fixed by -6- NC: 2024:KHC:30291-DB MFA No. 601/2023 this Court for the purpose of Lok-Adalaths in the State.
Admittedly, as per the said chart, for the accident taken place in the year 2020, notional income fixed is Rs.14,500/- p.m., but the Tribunal has considered the income at Rs.20,000/- p.m. without assigning any reason and without there being any ground to deviate the same from the said income of Rs.14,500/-.
10. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi1 and Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram2, 40% has to be included to the income by way of future prospects which comes to Rs.5,800/-. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another3, as the deceased had four dependents, 1/4th has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and the claimants are entitled to 3/4th income. The applicable multiplier is '16'. Therefore, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs.29,23,200/- (Rs.14,500+5,800x12x16x3/4= Rs.29,23,200/-). 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 2 (AIR 2018 SC 1249) 3 (AIR 2009 SC 3104) -7- NC: 2024:KHC:30291-DB MFA No. 601/2023
11. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's and Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd.'s cases each of the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- on the head 'loss of consortium' with escalation of 10%. Similarly, they are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of estate and funeral expenses with 10% escalation. Therefore, the compensation payable on the head of loss of consortium comes to Rs.1,76,000/- and under the conventional heads namely, loss of estate and funeral expenses comes to Rs.33,000/-. Both counsel concede that medical expenses of Rs.12,55,920/- spent for treatment of deceased was based on the supporting medical bills. Therefore, the just compensation payable is as follows:
Towards loss of dependency Rs.29,23,200/- Towards loss of consortium Rs. 1,76,000/- Towards loss of estate and funeral Rs. 33,000/- expenses Towards medical expenses Rs. 12,55,920/-
Total Rs. 43,88,120/-
12. The award needs to be modified accordingly. The appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: -8-
NC: 2024:KHC:30291-DB MFA No. 601/2023 ORDER
i) The appeal is partly allowed;
ii) The impugned award is modified as follows:
a) The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.43,88,120/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till it's realization.
b) The award of the Tribunal with regard to apportionment, investment and release is maintained.
c) The statutory deposit made before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17