United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sri Mahadevamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 7755 Kant

                          1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2022

                       BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

              M.F.A.NO.6684/2016 C/W
             M.F.A.NO.6683/2016 (MV-D)

IN MFA NO.6684/2016

BETWEEN:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
NO.1119/B, KAMBALI BUILDING,
M.C.ROAD, ASHOKANAGAR,
MANDYA-571401.

KRISHI BHAVAN BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
SRI DEVANATHAN
                                        ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE APPEARING
THROUGH V/C)

AND:

1.     SMT. MAHADEVAMMA,
       AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
       W/O LATE MARIMADIAH,

2.     SRI H.M. RAVI PRASAD,
       AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
                           2



      S/O LATE MARIMADAIAH,

      BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
      YADADORE VILLAGE,
      T. NARASIPURA TALUK-571124.

3.    SRI T. NAGANNA, MAJOR,
      S/O THAMMEGOWDA,
      RESIDENT OF BULKERE VILLAGE,
      KIRUGAVALU HOBLI,
      MALAVALLI TALUK,
      MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.
      (OWNER OF LORRY NO.KA.05/4786)
                                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.K.MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2
    SRI ANAND YESHWANTH SAJJANA GOUDAR, ADV., FOR R3)

      THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT    AGAINST      THE   JUDGMENT     AND    AWARD
DATED:25.6.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.47/2014 ON THE
FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, T.NARASIPURA,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.10,37,000/- WITH
INTEREST @ 9% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
DEPOSIT AND ETC.,


IN MFA NO.6683/2016

BETWEEN:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
NO.1119/B, KAMBALI BUILDING,
M.C.ROAD, ASHOKANAGAR,
MANDYA. KRISHI BHAVAN BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
                            3



BENGALURU-560009.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
SRI DEVANATHAN
                                             ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI MAHADEVA @ BHIMA,
       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
       S/O LATE MADAIAH,

2.     SMT. BHAGYA,
       AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
       W/O MAHADEVA @ BHIMA,

3.     SRI MAHENDRA,
       AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
       S/O MAHADEVA @ BHIMA,

4.     SRI MAHESHA,
       AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
       S/O MAHADEVA @ BHIMA,

       ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
       YADADORE VILLAGE,
       T. NARASIPURA TULUK,
       MYSURU DISTRICT-570001.

5.     SRI T. NAGANNA, MAJOR,
       S/O THAMMEGOWDA,
       RESIDENT OF BULKERE VILLAGE,
       KIRUGAVALU HOBLI,
       MALAVALLI TALUK,
       MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.
       (OWNER OF LORRY NO.KA.05/4786)
                                    ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.K. MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4,
    SRI ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
                               4



     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT   AGAINST      THE    JUDGMENT   AND     AWARD
DATED:25.6.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.46/14 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, T.NARASIPURA,
AWARDING     COMPENSATION OF RS.10,57,000/- WITH
INTEREST @ 9% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
DEPOSIT AND ETC.,

     THESE M.F.As. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                   JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed by the appellant-

Insurance Company challenging the judgment and

award dated 25.06.2016 passed in MVC.Nos.47/2014

and 46/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT,

JMFC, T.Narasipura.

2 Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 25.12.2013 at about 7.20 pm., the deceased

Madhusundar along with his friend deceased

Mallikarjunaswamy were proceeding on a motorcycle

bearing Reg.No.KA-55-H-7964 from Yadadore to

Rangasamudra. The deceased Madhusundar was

riding the bike. When they reached near land of

Mahadeshwara of yadadore, by observing traffic rules,

the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-05-4786

drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from

Rangasamudra and dashed against the motorcycle of

the deceased from back side. Due to the impact, both

Mallikarjunaswamy and Madhusundar have sustained

grievous injuries and Madhusundar succumbed to the

injuries at the spot itself. Mallikarujnaswamy was

shifted to Government Hospital, T.Narasipura, for

treatment. After providing first aid treatment, he was

shifted to Cauvery Hospital, Mysuru. But he

succumbed to the injuries on 27.12.2013 while taking

treatment at Cauvery Hospital.

The claimants in MVC.No.46/2014 have filed the

claim petition seeking compensation. Claimant No.1 is

the father, claimant No.2 is the mother and claimant

Nos.3 and 4 are the brothers of the deceased. The

deceased Mallikarjunaswamy was hale and healthy

prior to the accident and he was working as a coolie

and earning Rs.500/- per day.

The claimants in MVC.No.47/2014 have filed the

claim petition seeking compensation. Claimant No.1 is

the mother and claimant No.2 is the brother of the

deceased. The deceased Madhusundar was hale and

healthy prior to the accident and he was also working

as a coolie and earning Rs.500/- per day.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the

appellant -Insurance Company in MFA.No.6683/2016

submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in

awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head

"pain and suffering", which cannot be awarded in the

case of death. The amount of compensation under the

head "pain and suffering" can be awarded only in the

case of injury, but not in the case of death, where it is

accorded. Therefore, prays for reduction of

Rs.20,000/- from the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal.

4. Further submitted that the Tribunal has

awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the

award amount, which is on the higher side. Therefore,

prays for reducing the rate of interest from 9% p.a.,

to 6% p.a. On these two grounds, the judgment and

award has been challenged before this Court.

5. Further learned counsel for the appellant -

Insurance Company in MFA.No.6684/2016 submitted

that the Tribunal has awarded the rate of interest at

9% p.a., which is on the higher side instead of

granting rate of interest at 6% p.a. Therefore, on this

ground alone, MFA No.6684/2016 is filed before this

Court.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondents/claimants submitted that the amount of

compensation awarded under each head is correct and

there is no need to make interference. Further

submitted that, even though, the Tribunal has

awarded lesser amount of compensation under each

heads, but the claimants have not chosen to prefer an

appeal. Further submitted that, in both the cases, the

claimants lost their bread earner of the family in a

road traffic accident. Therefore, considering this

aspect, the Tribunal has awarded rate of interest at

9% p.a., which is not illegal, but the same is

recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of

decisions. Therefore, submitted that the Insurance

Company does not have any ground on this aspect.

Therefore, prays for dismissal of these appeals.

7. In MVC.No.46/2014 the Tribunal has

awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head

"pain and suffering". According to the appellant -

Insurance Company, in both the cases, no

compensation can be awarded under the head "pain

and suffering" in the case of death. In the present

case, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000/-

under the head pain and suffering apart from the

other heads. But upon considering other factors that

the claimants have lost their dependency, the amount

of compensation awarded under other heads are

found to be on the lesser side. Therefore, even if

Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the head "pain and

suffering" it cannot be held to be illegal. Therefore, I

do not find any reason to make interference on this

ground raised by the appellant-Insurance Company.

8. In both the cases, the

respondents/claimants have lost their bread earner of

the family. For the death of the deceased, it cannot be

made as equated with the sufferings of death of bread

earner of the family in monetary terms. Therefore,

even if a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the

head "pain and suffering" that cannot be said to be

illegal. Therefore, I do not find any ground to make

interference in these appeals and the appeals are

liable to be dismissed.

9. In both the claim petitions, the Tribunal

has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the

date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant-

Insurance Company submitted that normally interest

at the rate of 6% p.a., is awarded and in the present

cases, the rate of interest at 9% p.a., is awarded,

which is not correct. But the Hon'ble Apex Court in a

catena of decisions has awarded interest at the rate of

9% p.a. Therefore, even if interest is awarded at the

rate of 9% p.a., that cannot be said to be illegal.

10. As observed above, in the case of death,

what has been awarded by the Tribunal that cannot be

made equated with the sufferings of death of bread

earner of the family. Therefore, in this regard, I hold

that the Tribunal is justified in awarding rate of

interest at 9% p.a. In this regard, I place reliance on

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Anoop Chinappa Vs. Poorna Prakash reported in

2020 ACJ 746 (SC).

11. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the

claim made by the learned counsel for the appellant-

Insurance Company to make interference with the

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

Therefore, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

12. Hence, I proceed to pass the following

ORDER

MFA Nos.6684/2016 and 6683/2016 are

dismissed.

The judgment and award dated 25.06.2016

passed in MVC.Nos.47/2014 and 46/2014 by the

Senior Civil Judge and MACT, JMFC, T.Narasipura, are

hereby confirmed.

The amount in deposit in both the appeals is

directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith

along with the records and copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PB