The Branch Manager, New India vs Ramakrishna And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3255 Kant

                            1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                        BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

               MFA No.201812/2018
                       C/W
             MFA No.201813/2018 (MV)

IN MFA No.201812/2018:

BETWEEN

The Branch Manager
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Gurukul Road, Hanamashetty Building
Vijayapura, through its Divisional Manager
Sangameshwar Colony, Gulbarga-585103
Presently represented by Sr. Divisional Manager

                                              ...Appellant
(By Sri Uday P. Honguntikar, Advocate)

AND

1.    Ramakrishna S/o Shankar Gayakwad
      Age: 33 years, Occ: Agriculture
      R/o: Baba Nagar, Vijayapura
      Tq: & Dist: Vijayapura-586114

2.    Swapna W/o Ramakrishna Gayakwad
      Age: 28 years, Occ: Household Work
      R/o: Baba Nagar, Vijayapura
      Tq: & Dist: Vijayapura-586114
                              2




3.    Amol S/o Balakrishna Sangaonkar
      Age: 48 years, Occ: Business
      R/o: Deena Bandhu Housing Society
      Jaisingapur, Dist: Kolhapur,
      Maharashtra-416101
                                            ...Respondents

(By Sri Biradar Veerangouda, Advocate for R1 & R2;
    Notice to R3 served)

     This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of MV Act, praying to set aside the judgment and
award dated 07.04.2018 in MVC No.767/2015 passed by
the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT-VII at Vijayapura by
allowing the appeal.

IN MFA No.201813/2018:

BETWEEN:

The Branch Manager
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Gurukul Road, Hanamashetty Building
Vijayapura, Through its Divisional Manager
Sangameshwar Colony, Gulbarga-585103
Presently represented by Sr. Divisional Manager

                                               ...Appellant
(By Sri Uday P.Honguntikar, Advocate)

AND

1.    Ramakrishna S/o Shankar Gayakwad
      Age: 33 years, Occ: Agriculture
      R/o: Baba Nagar, Vijayapura
      Tq: & Dist: Vijayapura-586114

2.    Swapna W/o Ramakrishna Gayakwad
      Age: 28 years, Occ: Household Work
                                       3




         R/o: Baba Nagar, Vijayapura
         Tq: & Dist: Vijayapura-586114

3.       Amol S/o Balakrishna Sangaonkar
         Age: 48 years, Occ: Business
         R/o: Deena Bandhu Housing Society
         Jaisingapur, Dist: Kolhapur,
         Maharashtra-416101
                                                           ...Respondents

(By Sri Biradar Veerangouda, Advocate for R1 & R2;
Notice to R3 served)

     This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of MV Act, praying to set aside the judgment and
award dated 07.04.2018 in MVC No.768/2015 passed by
the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT-VII at Vijayapura by
allowing the appeal.

      These appeals coming on for orders this day the
court delivered the following:

                                 JUDGMENT

These two appeals are filed by the insurer

challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT-VII at Vijayapura (for

short, 'Tribunal') in MVC Nos.767/2015 and MVC

No.768/2015.

2. The claimants in these appeals are the legal

representatives of deceased Sanjaya and Sujay @ Srujan

in MVC Nos.767/2015 and 768/2015. It is stated that on

03.04.2015 the deceased were traveling in a Car bearing

Reg.No.GA.02/J.6809 towards Vijayapura from Tikota side.

At about 4.00 p.m., Car bearing Reg.No.MH-04/ET.3754

(henceforth referred as offending vehicle) driven by its

driver from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent

manner, dashed against the Car in which the deceased

were traveling. As a result, both Sanjaya and Sujay @

Srujan suffered injuries and died at the spot. The

claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased

have filed claim petitions claiming compensation from the

owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. The insurer of the offending vehicle as usual

contended that it was the driver of the Car in which the

deceased were traveling, who was negligent and

responsible for the accident.

4. Based on the rival contention, the Tribunal set

down the cases for trial. The claimants were examined

and they marked documents.

5. Based on the oral and documentary evidence,

the Tribunal applied the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and Another vs. Lala

and Others reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 and held that

each of the claimants are entitled to a total compensation

of sum of `5,90,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9%

from the date of petition till the date of realization.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and

award, the insurer has filed the present appeals.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended

that the Apex Court in the case of Kisan Gopal supra had

directed payment of sum of `5,00,000/- as global

compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased

and the Tribunal committed an error in considering the

notional income of the deceased at ` 30,000/- per annum

and in applying the maximum multiplier and awarding a

sum of `5,40,000/- and `50,000/- under the conventional

heads. Further he contended that the tribunal had erred in

awarding 9% interest instead of 6% and same requires

interference by this court.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants

contended that the accident in Kisan Gopal supra

occurred in the year 1992 while in the present case the

accident occurred in the year 2015 and therefore the

Tribunal was right in awarding a sum of `5,90,000/- as

compensation.

9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

the claimants, the Apex Court in the case of Kisan Gopal

supra had held that a sum of `30,000/- per annum could

be taken as the notional income of the deceased minor and

in the present case the age of the mother was taken, the

maximum multiplier was applied. Having regard to the

rate of inflation, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

cannot be termed excessive and hence no interference is

warranted at the hands of this court. However, the

Tribunal erred in awarding interest at the rate of 9% p.a.

instead of 6%. Thus, to this extent the judgment and award

of the Tribunal deserves modification. Accordingly, the

claimants are entitled for interest @ 6% p.a. instead of 9%.

Hence, the appeals are allowed in part. The

judgment and award of the Tribunal in MVC No.767/2015

and 768/2015 are confirmed but the rate of interest a

warded by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% per

annum to 6% per annum from the date of claim petitions

till realization.

In view of disposal of main appeals, I.A.Nos.3/2018 in

both the appeals does not survive for consideration,

accordingly they are rejected.

The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the

Tribunal for passing necessary orders.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BL