Sri Chinnabasappa vs Icici Lombard General Insurance ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2551 Kant

                              1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

            DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2021

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                  M.F.A.NO.5983/2015 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI CHINNABASAPPA,
       S/O LATE MURIGAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

2.     SRI RAJESH,
       S/O CHINNABASAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

3.     SRI LOKESH,
       S/O CHINNABASAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

       ALL ARE R/AT MOTAGANAHALLI,
       MAGADI TALUK,
       RAMANGARA DISTRICT.                       ... APPELLANTS

              (BY SRI P. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       NO.89, 2ND FLOOR,
       SVR COMPLEX, MADIWALA,
       HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560068.
       REP BY ITS MANAGER.

2.     BERGGRUEN CAR RENTALS PVT LTD.,
       NO.16, 18TH CROSS,
       GAJENDRANAGAR,
       ANEPALYA MAIN ROAD,
       BENGALURU-560030.                    ... RESPONDENTS
       (BY SRI B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
                          R-2 SERVED)
                                2



     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.04.2015 PASSED
IN MVC.NO.2975/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER-MACT,
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION      AND     SEEKING    ENHANCEMENT     OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THROUGH 'VIDEO
CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award

dated 07.04.2015 passed in M.V.C.No.2975/2014 on the file of

the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and XXXIII ACMM,

Member-MACT, Bengaluru ('the Tribunal' for short) questioning

the quantum of compensation.

2. The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid the confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased

Chandrakala @ Chandramma met with an accident on

12.05.2014 and succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the claim

petition was filed by her husband and two major sons. The

claimants in order to substantiate their claim examined two

witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked the documents at

Exs.P.1 to 12. The respondents did not choose to lead any

evidence. The Tribunal after considering both oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, considered the income

of Rs.7,000/- per month and assessed the loss of dependency

and awarded the compensation of Rs.6,51,300/-. Hence, the

present appeal is filed before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend

that the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 50% of

income towards persona expenses instead of 1/3rd and also

granted Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium and hence it

requires interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1

would submit that the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of

income towards personal expenses as only the husband is the

dependent and two major sons are not dependants. Hence, it

does not require any interference of this Court.

6. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

on perusal of the records, the Tribunal has awarded an amount

of Rs.40,300/- under the head medical expenses based on the

records. Hence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the

same. The Tribunal assessed the income of Rs.7,000/- per

month. In the absence of documentary proof regarding income,

the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of

Rs.8,500/- per month since the accident is of the year 2014.

The Tribunal rightly deducted 50% of income towards personal

expenses as claimant No.1 husband is the only dependant and

two sons are major and they are not dependants. Hence, the

contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that 1/3rd of

the income ought to have been deducted cannot be accepted.

Now the 'loss of dependency' is calculated as under:

     Monthly income                 -    Rs.8,500/-

     Add: 25% towards
          Future prospects          -    Rs.2,125/-
                                         --------------
                                    -    Rs.10,625/-
     Less: 50% towards
            Personal expenses       -    Rs.5,313/-
                                         --------------
                                    -    Rs.5,312/-
                                         -----------------
     Loss of dependency             =    Rs.8,28,672/-
     (Rs.5,312/- x 12 x 13)              ------------------

7. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under

the head conventional heads as held by the Apex Court in the

case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v.

PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC

680.

In all, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of

Rs.9,45,972/- as against Rs.6,51,300/-.

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 07.04.2015 passed in M.V.C.No.2975/2014 is modified granting compensation of Rs.9,45,972/- as against Rs.6,51,300/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD