Karnataka High Court
The United India Insurance ... vs Sangeeta And Ors on 17 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, V Srishananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
M.F.A. NO.200216/2022 (MV)
BETWEEN:
The United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager
Divisional Office, 2nd Floor
Century Complex, Opp. Sangam Talkies
Super Market, Kalaburagi - 585 101
... Appellant
(By Sri Mohd. Abdul Quayum, Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt. Sangeeta
W/o. late Ravindra More
Age: 41 years, Occ: Household
2. Divyarani
D/o. Late Ravindra More
Age: 22 years, Occ: Student
3. Nikhel
S/o. Late Ravindra More
2
Age: 19 years, Occ: Student
4. Harish, S/o. Late Ravindra More
Age: 17 years, Occ: Student
5. Amit, S/o. Late Ravindra More
Age: 15 years, Occ: Student
The respondents 4 & 5 are minors
U/g of their natural mother/next friend
Respondent No.1
6. Santoshamma
W/o. Mastanappa More
Age: 63 years, Occ: Household
Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are R/o H.No.2-98
Hallikhed (K)
Dist: Bidar - 585 330
7. Santoshkumar
S/o. Kalyan Rao
Age: Major, Occ: Business
R/o Devinagar
Kalaburagi - 585 103
... Respondents
(By Smt. Neeva M. Chimkod, Adv. For R1 to 6;
v/o. order dt.17.02.2022 notice to R7 is dispensed with)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under
Section 173(1) of the M.V.Act, praying to set aside the judgment
and award dated 26.10.2021 passed in MVC No.1059/2019 by
the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi reducing
the quantum of compensation.
This appeal coming on for Admission this day,
V. Srishananda J., delivered the following:
3
JUDGMENT
Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the
consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. The present appeal is by the appellant-Insurance
Company challenging the validity of judgment and award passed
in MVC No.1059/2019 dated 26.10.2021 by the learned II
Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
A claim petition came to be filed contending that on
16.07.2019, the deceased Ravindra More after taking meals was
proceeding to his land, at about 2.30 p.m., when he was near
Neeravari Nigam Building on Humnabad-Kalaburagi Road, at
that juncture, one Hero Honda Passion Plus Motor Cycle bearing
No.KA-32/R-1909 came from behind in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to the said
impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries
and died on the spot. The claimants, who are the wife, mother
and children have laid a claim petition for awarding suitable
compensation in respect of the accident.
4. The claim petition was resisted by filing necessary
written statement. The Tribunal raised necessary issues and
after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record,
allowed the claim petition in part in a sum of Rs.24,12,300/- as
compensation with interest at 6% per annum form the date of
petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the
present appeal is preferred by the appellant - Insurance
Company.
5. In the appeal memorandum, following grounds have
been raised:
x The impugned judgment and award is against the law
and arbitrary, hence not sustainable and fit to be set
aside.
x The Tribunal had not appreciated that the claimants
were not entitled to the huge compensation without
proof of the age and income through any authentic
documents. The deceased was considered by the
Tribunal to be aged 45 years as per the post-mortem
report, marked as Exhibit P 6 and committed an error
in adding the future prospects @40%6 instead of 25%
in accordance of the Apex Court guidelines in various
cases.
x The impugned judgment and award is against the law
and arbitrary in as much as the Tribunal had arrived
at the loss of dependency at Rs.23,37,300/-
considering the notional income of Rs.13,250/- p.m.
and the multiplier 14 taking the age of the deceased
as 45 years deducting 1/4th instead of 1/3rd towards
personal expenses. Hence it is not sustainable and fit
to be set aside.
x The Tribunal arbitrarily awarded high amount of
compensation. Thus the quantum of the award is too
high and exorbitant.
6. Reiterating the above grounds, the learned counsel
for the appellant Sri Mohd. Abdul Quayum, vehemently
contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the higher side and thus, sought for reduction of
compensation.
7. Per contra, Sri Sanjeev Patil, learned counsel for the
respondents/appellants supported the impugned judgment and
award and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. In the case on hand, the accidental death of
Ravindra More on 16.07.2019 at about 2.30 p.m. near Neeravari
Nigam Building on Humnabad-Kalaburagi Road involving the
motorcycle bearing No.KA-32/R-1909 stands established by
placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record.
The motorcycle was duly insured with the appellant-Insurance
Company. The Insurance Company has stated that the amount
awarded by the Tribunal on the head of 'Loss of dependency' is
on the higher side and thus, sought for reduction of quantum of
compensation. The Trial Court while computing the quantum of
compensation on the head of 'Loss of dependency' had added
40% future prospects. The deceased was admittedly aged about
45 years and therefore, claimants would be entitled for additional
20% and not 40% as per the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
Hence, quantum of compensation needs to be re-worked.
Accordingly, on the head of 'Loss of dependency', following
calculation is to be applied and the amount of compensation on
the head of 'Loss of dependency' needs to be reduced. Hence, it
is re-computed as under:
Loss of dependency : Rs.20,86,896.00
(13,250+25% = 16,563
16563x1/4x12x14)
Loss of estate : Rs. 15,000.00
Funeral Expenses : Rs. 15,000.00
Loss of consortium : Rs. 2,40,000.00
Total : Rs.23,56,896.00
9. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
1. Appeal is hereby allowed in part.
2. As against a sum of Rs.24,12,300/-, the claimants
are entitled to a sum of Rs.23,56,896/- with interest
at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
3. Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
4. Balance amount is ordered to be deposited by the
Insurance Company within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
5. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KA
