M/S Reliance General Insurance vs Shri.Rohit
2022 Latest Caselaw 320 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                     DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                          PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

                             AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

                 M.F.A.NO.103235 OF 2016 (MV)
                             C/W
                 M.F.A.NO.100366 OF 2017 (MV)

IN M.F.A.NO.103235 OF 2016

BETWEEN

M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, MAADEV PLAZA
2ND FLOOR, KOLHAPUR CIRCLE
NEHARU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COM. LTD.,
V.A. KALBURGI SQUARE, CTS NO.472-474
DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR
HUBBALLI-580020.
                                                ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.N.RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.      SHRI.ROHIT S/O VASANT KADAM
        AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
        R/O: BACHI, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI-590010.
                              2



2.   KUMAR RITESH S/O ROHIT KADAM
     AGE: 6 YEARS,
     OCC: SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
     M/G RESPONDENT NO.1, R/O: BACHI

TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI-590010.

3. KUMAR OM S/O ROHIT KADAM, AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY M/G RESPONDENT NO.1, R/O: BACHI TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI-590010.

4. UTTAM S/O MARUTI JADHAV AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS R/O: JARANDI, TAL: TASGAON, DIST: SANGLI, STATE MAHARASHTRA.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. Y.LAKSHMIKANT, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3; R4- NOTICE SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.860/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T., BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI.

IN M.F.A.NO.100366 OF 2017

BETWEEN

1. SHRI.ROHIT, S/O VASANT KADAM AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: BACHI, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI-590010.

2. KUMAR RITESH, S/O ROHIT KADAM AGE: 6 YEARS, OCC: SINCE MINOR R/O: BACHI, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI-590010.

3. KUMAR OM, S/O ROHIT KADAM AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: SINCE MINOR R/O: BACHI, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI-590010.

(SINCE THE PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE MONORE REPRESENTED BY M/G PETITIONER NO.1)

... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. UMESH AINAPUR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SHRI. UTTAM, S/O MARITI JADHAV AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS, R/O JARANDI, TQ: TASGAON DIST: SANGLI, STATE MAHARASHTRA.

2. M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MAADEV PLAZA 2ND FLOOR, KOLHAPUR CIRCLE NEHARU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010.

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.N.RAICHUR, ADV., FOR R2; R1- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.860/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T., BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI.

THESE MFA's COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, S.G. PANDIT, J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGMENT

Both the appeals filed by the Insurance Company as

well as the claimants are taken up together and disposed

off by this common judgment.

2. The Insurance Company has filed MFA

No.103235/2016, questioning the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the claimants

have filed MFA No.100366/2017, not being satisfied with

the quantum of compensation awarded under the

judgment and award dated 01.06.2016 in MVC

No.860/2015 on the file of VI Addl. District and Sessions

Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Belagavi (hereinafter referred as

'Tribunal', for short) and praying for enhancement of

compensation.

3. Heard learned counsel, Sri.G.N.Raichur for the

Insurance Company and Sri.Umesh.C.Ainapur, learned

counsel for the claimants. Perused the appeal papers.

4. The accident that had taken place on

09.02.2015 involving truck bearing Regn. No.MH-

10Z/4540 and motorcycle bearing Regn. No.MH-09/DK-

1107 and the accidental death of one Rani w/o Rohit

Kadam-first claimant is not in dispute in these appeals.

The insurer is in appeal questioning the quantum of

compensation and the claimants are in appeal praying for

enhancement of compensation.

5. The claimants-husband and children of

deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicle Act, claiming compensation for the accidental

death of one Rani W/o Rohit Kadam-first claimant in the

above stated road traffic accident. It is stated that the

deceased was doing tailoring work and was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal on consideration of

the materials on record, assessed the income of the

deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month, added 50% towards

future prospects and awarded compensation as follows:

1. Loss of love and affection Rs.2,00,000/-

towards minor children

2. Loss of estate Rs.1,00,000/-

3. Loss of dependency Rs.15,30,000/-

4. Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-

5. Towards transportation of dead Rs.25,000/-

body and funeral expenses Total Rs.19,55,000/-

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company

contends that the Tribunal committed an error in

assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per

month as there is no material to come to the conclusion

that the deceased was earning Rs.7,500/- per month.

Learned counsel further submits that adding 50% of the

assessed income towards future prospects is also an error

committed by the Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel, Sri.G.N.Raichur inviting

attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in National Insurance Company Vs Pranay Sethi1,

submits that since the deceased was aged 27 years, the

claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the

(2017 ACJ 2011)

assessed income towards future prospects. It is also

contented that the Tribunal committed gross error in

awarding excess compensation on the head of loss of love

and affection; loss of estate and loss of consortium. It is

submitted that the claimants would be entitled for loss of

consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each as held by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd

Vs Nanu Ram and Others2. Further, he also submits that

the claimants would be entitled for loss of estate of

Rs.15,000/- and not Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by the

Tribunal. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by

the insurer and to reduce the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants

submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal at

Rs.7,500/- per month is on the lower side. He submits

that this Court and the Lok-Adalaths while settling the

(2018 ACJ 2782)

accidental claims of the year 2015 would normally assess

the income at Rs.8,000/- p.m. wherever there is no

material for assessing the income. Thus, he prays for

assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per

month. Further, he supports the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal on other heads and prays for dismissing

the appeal filed by Insurance Company and to allow the

appeal filed by the claimants.

9. As stated above, the accident which had taken

place on 09.02.2015 involving above stated vehicles and

the accidental death of one Rani W/o Rohit-first claimant

is not in dispute. The insurer is in appeal before the Court

questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, whereas the claimants are in appeal praying for

enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal assessed the

income at Rs.7,500/- per month, which is on the lower

side in our opinion. This Court and the Lok-Adalaths

while settling the accidental claims of the year 2015,

would assess the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-

per month based on the chart prepared by the Karnataka

State Legal Services Authority. In the instant case also, in

the absence of any material to establish the income of the

deceased, it is appropriate for us to assess the income of

the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay

Sethi (supra) has held that wherever age of the deceased

is below 40 years, the claimants would be entitled for

addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future

prospects of the deceased. Following the said decision, in

the case on hand also, the claimants would be entitled for

addition of 40% of the assessed income of the deceased

towards future prospects. The multiplier of '17' taken by

the Tribunal is proper. Whereas, the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal on the head of loss of love and

affection towards minor children at Rs.2,00,000/-; loss of

estate at Rs.1,00,000/- and loss of consortium at

Rs.1,00,000/- is on the higher side. The Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that

the spouse would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards

spousal consortium and would be entitled for 15,000/- on

the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards

transportation and funeral expenses. The claimants No.2

and 3 i.e. children of the deceased would be entitled for

parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each as held by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma (supra). Thus,

the claimants would be entitled for the following modified

compensation;

1. Loss of dependency on conventional Rs.15,23,200/-

head (8,000 + 40% = 11,200 11,200 x 12 x 17 x 2/3rd)

2. Spousal consortium Rs.40,000/-

3. Transportation and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-

4. Parental consortium Rs.80,000/-

(40,000x2=80,000/-)

5. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-

Total Rs.16,73,200/-

11. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total

compensation of Rs.16,73,200/- as against

Rs.19,55,000/-.

12. The Tribunal has awarded 9% interest on the

compensation. Taking into note of the present day bank

interest, we are of the view that awarding of interest at the

rate of 9% on the compensation is on the higher side and

the same is reduced to 6%.

13. On deposit made by the Insurance Company,

25% of the total compensation shall be released in favour

of the *first claimant-husband of the deceased with

accrued interest. Remaining 75% shall be kept in fixed

deposit in any nationalized bank in the name of second

and third claimants-minor children of the deceased till

they attain the age of majority, with liberty to *first

claimant-husband of the deceased to withdraw the

periodical interest accrued on it.

Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed in part.

The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal

stands modified to the above extent.

Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be

transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

*Corrected vide Court Order dated 23.2.2022.

(SGPJ) & (ARHJ)

Draw modified award accordingly.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/-

JUDGE am