Karnataka High Court
M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance vs Smt Rabaiya Khatun on 31 May, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.313 OF 2022 (MV)
C/W
MFA No.316 OF 2022(MV)
IN MFA NO.313/2022
BETWEEN:
M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
PRESENTLY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.30, 3RD FLOOR, JNR CITY CENTRE,
RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD,
SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
BY ITS STATE HEAD LEGAL
MR. SUDHAKARA H.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAVI.S.SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.USHADEVI,
W/O PRAMOD KUMAR RAY,
@PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
2. SRI.PRAMOD KUMAR RAY,
@PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,
S/O LATE HARIKESH RAY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
2
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
KARAMANI MOHABATH VILLAGE,
KUCHYAKOT, THAHSALI,
GOPALA GANJ DISTRICT,
BIHAR STATE - 841 501.
AND ALSO AT:
CHANNIGAPPA PARKING LOT,
DABBSPET, NELAMANGALAR TALUK,
BENGALURU NORTH DISTRICT.
3. SRI.CHANNAPPA BIJARAGI,
S/O SANGAPPA BIJJARAGI,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT A/P, DINDAWAR,
BASAVANA BAGEWADI TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGE GOWDA.N.R.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.2164/2019 ON THE FILE
OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-17)
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.23,75,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A. FROM THE DATED OF
PETITIONS TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
MFA No.316 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
PRESENTLY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
3
NO.30, 3RD FLOOR, JNR CITY CENTRE,
RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD,
SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
BY ITS STATE HEAD LEGAL
MR. SUDHAKARA H.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAVI.S.SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RABAIYA KHATUN,
W/O LATE ALLAUDDIN ANSARI,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
2. SRI.WAHID ANSARI,
S/O LATE ALLAUDDIN ANSARI,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
3. SMT.SHABANA KHATUN,
D/O LATE ALLAUDDIN ANSARI,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
4. SMT.NAIMUN NISHA,
W/O LATE ALI AHAMED ANSARI,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.2 MINOR AND
REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT AS
MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
ALL ARE R/AT: MAHAMMEDPURA PATTI VILLAGE,
KALADUMRA POST, MUSTAFABAD,
GORIYAKOTE TALUK, SIWAN DISTRICT,
BIHAR STATE.
AND ALSO AT:
CHANNIGAPPA PARKING LOT,
DABBSPET, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
4
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
5. SRI.CHANNAPPA BIJJARAGI,
S/O SANGAPPA BIJJARAGI,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT A/P, DINDAWAR,
BASAVANA BAGEWADI TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N.R.RANGEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.2165/2019 ON THE FILE
OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-17,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.28,48,220/- WITH
INTEREST AT 8 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF THE
PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THESE MFAs ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA No.313/2022 and MFA No.316/2022 are
filed by the Insurance Company challenging the
judgment and award passed by the XIX Addl. Judge &
Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru
dated 29.09.2021 in MVC Nos.2164/2019 and
2165/2019 seeking for reduction of compensation.
Since both the appeals are arising out of the same
accident, both the appeals are clubbed, heard
together and are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals
briefly stated are that on 24.03.2019 at about 06.30
A.M., the deceased-Prince Kumar Singh in
MVC No.2164/2019 and deceased-Allauddin Ansari in
MVC No.2165/2019 were proceeding on a Bajaj
Discovery motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-04-
HN-4423 on NH-3, Tumkur-Bengaluru highway,
opposite to Chandra Hosahalli, AMS Car Garage,
Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru. At
that time, the driver of the Car bearing Registration
No.KA-28-P-7023 drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle. As
a result of the aforesaid accident, both Prince Kumar
Singh and Allauddin Ansari sustained grievous injuries
and succumbed to the injuries.
3. The claimants filed seperate petition under
Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the
death of the deceased along with interest.
4. On service of summons, the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle have appeared through counsel and
filed written statement in which the averments made
in the petition were denied.
It was pleaded by the owner that the petition
itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was
further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash
and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the
deceased-Prince Kumar Singh himself. It was further
pleaded that the policy was valid as on the date of the
accident. Therefore, the insurer is liable to pay the
compensation.
It was pleaded by the insurer that the driver of
the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving
licence as on the date of the accident. The liability is
subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The age,
occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It
was further pleaded that the quantum of
compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant.
Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to
prove their case, examined claimant No.2 in
MVC No.2164/2019 as PW-1 and claimant No.1 in
MVC No.2165/2019 as PW-2 and got exhibited
documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On behalf of
respondents, neither examined any witness nor
exhibited any document on their behalf. The Claims
Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held
that the accident took place on account of rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver,
as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries
and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further
held that the claimants in MVC No.2164/2019 are
entitled to a compensation of Rs.23,75,000/- and
claimants in MVC No.2165/2019 are entitled to a
compensation of Rs.28,48,220/- along with interest at
the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance
Company to deposit the compensation amount along
with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals have
been filed by the Insurance Company.
IN MVC NO.2164/2019
6. Sri Ravi S. Samprathi, the learned counsel
for the Insurance Company has raised the following
counter-contentions:
Firstly, at the time of the accident, deceased-
Prince Kumar Singhwas aged about 26 years. In view
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY
SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in case the
deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an
addition of 40% of the established income towards
'future prospects' should be the warrant where the
deceased was below the age of 40 years. But the
Tribunal instead of considering 40% of the income of
the deceased towards 'future prospects', has wrongly
considered as 50%.
Thirdly, in view of judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE
AND OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS
(MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of
on 24.8.2020), the claimants are entitled for 6%
interest but the Tribunal has granted 8% interest
which is on the higher side. Hence, he prays for
reduction of compensation.
7. Sri N. R. Rangegowda, learned counsel for
the claimants has raised the following contentions:
The claimants claim that the deceased was aged
about 26 years at the time of the accident and he was
earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as
Manager. Considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissal
of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that Prince Kumar Singh
died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its
driver.
At the time of the accident, the deceased was
aged about 26 years. The Tribunal after considering
age and avocation of the deceased, has rightly
assessed the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.15,000/-.
To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added
on account of future prospects in view of the law laid
down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
in 'PRANAY SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly
income comes to Rs.21,000/-. Since the deceased was
a bachelor at the time of the accident, it is appropriate
to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards
personal expenses and the monthly income comes to
Rs.10,500/-. The deceased was aged about 26 years
at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to
his age group is '17'. Thus, the claimants are
entitled to compensation of Rs.21,42,000/-
(Rs.10,500*12*17) on account of 'loss of
dependency'.
In addition, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of
estate' and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account
of 'funeral expenses'.
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE'
(supra), claimants are the parents of the deceased,
are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each
under the head of 'loss of filial consortium' .
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 21,42,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of Filial consortium 80,000
Total 22,52,000
IN MVC NO.2165/2019
11. Sri Ravi S. Samprathi, learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has raised the following
counter-contentions:
Firstly, at the time of the accident, deceased-
Allauddin Ansari was aged about 48 years. In view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of 'PRANAY SETHI' (supra) in case the deceased
was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of
25% of the established income towards 'future
prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased
was aged from 40-50 years. But the Tribunal instead
of considering 25% of the income of the deceased
towards 'future prospects', has wrongly considered as
30%.
Thirdly, in view of judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of 'MS.JOYEETA BOSE'
(supra), the claimants are entitled for 6% interest but
the Tribunal has granted 8% interest which is on the
higher side. Hence, he prays for reduction of
compensation.
12. Sri N. R. Rangegowda, learned counsel for
the claimants has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased
was aged about 48 years at the time of the accident
and he was earning Rs.22,000/- per month by
working as Manager.
Secondly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE' (supra), each of the claimants are
entitled for compensation under the head of 'loss of
love and affection and consortium'.
Thirdly, Considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissal
of the appeal.
13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
14. It is not in dispute that Allauddin Ansari
died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its
driver.
At the time of the accident, the deceased was
aged about 48 years. The Tribunal after considering
age and avocation of the deceased, has rightly
assessed the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.18,200/-.
To the aforesaid income, 25% has to be added
on account of future prospects in view of the law laid
down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
in 'PRANAY SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income
comes to Rs.22,750/-. Since there are four
dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/4th of the
income of the deceased towards personal expenses
and the monthly income comes to Rs.17,063/-. The
deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of the
accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is
'13'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation
of Rs.26,61,828/- (Rs.17,063*12*13) on account of
'loss of dependency'.
In addition, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of
estate' and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account
of 'funeral expenses'.
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE'
(supra), claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is
entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the
head of 'loss of spousal consortium', claimant Nos.2
and 3, children of the deceased are entitled for
compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of
'loss of parental consortium' and claimant No.4,
mother of the deceased is entitled for compensation of
Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of filial consortium' .
Since the claimants have not filed any appeal for
enhancement of compensation, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal Rs.28,48,220/- is just and
reasonable.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in
part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
The claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.22,52,000/- as against
Rs.23,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in MVC
No.2164/2019 and The claimants are entitled to a
total compensation of Rs.28,48,220/- in MVC
No.2165/2019.
In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of 'MS.JOYEETA BOSE' (supra), the
interest awarded by the Tribunal 8% is scale down to
6%.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the
date of realization, within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to
the concerned Tribunal.
In view of disposal of the appeals, all pending
IAs do not survive for consideration. Hence, the same
are also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA/-
