Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Nirmala on 21 November, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.6507/2014 (MV-D)
CONNECTED WITH
M.F.A.NO.7352/2014 (MV-D)
IN M.F.A.NO.6507/2014
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
OPP. BAPUJI AUDITORIUM, MCC-B BLOCK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
REPT. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE
144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M G ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SRINIVASA K N, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. NIRMALA
D/O MAHALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEAR
2. KAVITHA
D/O MAHALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25YEAR
2
3. SHILPA
D/O MAHALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEAR
4. SHEELA
D/O MAHALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEAR
5. HALESHA
D/O MAHALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEAR
6. MAHALINGAPPA
S/O PARVATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEAR
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE
R/AT KORATAGERE VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577213
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001
7. SRI HARISH H.S
S/O SHIVAMURTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
OWNER OF THE BIKE
RESIDING AT
ARENAHALLY VILLAGE,
ADANUR POST, HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.07.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.96/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE MACT, HOLALKERE AND ETC.
3
IN M.F.A.NO.7352/2014
BETWEEN
1. NIRMALA
W/O MAHALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
2. KAVITHA
D/O MAHALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
3. SHILPA
D/O MAHALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
4. SHEELA
D/O MAHALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
5. HALESHA
D/O MAHALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
6. MAHALINGAPPA
D/O PARVATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS
R/O KORATAKERE VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577 213
DAVANAGERE
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHASHIDHARA R, ADVOCATE)
4
AND
1. HARISH H S
S/O SHIVAMURTHAPPA
AGE 31 YEARS
ARENAHALLY VILLAGE
ADANUR POST
HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526
OWNER OF BIKE NO. KA-16/W-2600
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD.
OPP: BAPUJI AUDITORIUM
MCC B BLOCK
DAVANAGERE-577 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K N SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.07.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.96/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE MACT, HOLALKERE AND ETC.
THESE M.F.A.S COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company as well
as the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated
15.07.2014 passed in MVC No.96/2013 on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge MACT, Holalkere ('the Tribunal' for short).
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants before
the Tribunal is that they are the son, daughters and husband of
the deceased Mayamma @ Mangalamma and all are
agriculturists and the deceased also an agriculturist and she died
on account of accident on 02.12.2012 and spent an amount of
Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and on account of death
of the deceased, her family has lost the income of the deceased
hence, they made the claim. The claimants in order to
substantiate their contention examined the 2nd claimant as PW1
and also examined one witness as PW2 and got marked the
documents at Ex.P1 to P22. The respondents have not
examined any of the witnesses however confronted the
documents at Ex.R1 to R7 and also the policy copy at Ex.P8.
The Tribunal after considering both the oral and documentary
evidence awarded the compensation of Rs.6,90,000/- with 6%
interest.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award of
the Tribunal the Insurance Company as well as the claimants are
before this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company would contend that in terms of the
document at Ex.R1 to R7, which are the voter ID cards of the
deceased family shows that the deceased was aged about 60
years and she was born in the year 1952 and her husband was
born in the year 1946 and first daughter was born in the year
1984 and other children also born subsequent to the first
daughter was born hence, the Tribunal has committed an error
in awarding the compensation on higher side.
5. On the other hand, the counsel for the claimants
would submit that the income of the deceased was taken only
Rs.4,500/- and the notional income would be Rs.7,000/- since
the accident was of the year 2012 and future prospects has not
been added and the Tribunal and the Tribunal has rightly
considered the age of the deceased as per PM report and the
election ID cards cannot be believed as the same are only on
imagination and hence, the same cannot be a sole basis.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material available
on record no doubt the PM report discloses the age of the
deceased as 45 years in terms of Ex.P6 and the respondents
have also relied upon the election ID cards of the family wherein
it discloses that the age of the deceased as 60 years and the
husband of the deceased date of birth is shown as 1946 and the
first daughter age is mentioned as 26 years and having taken
note of the said document into consideration, the first daughter
was born at the age of 32 years of the deceased hence, the
election ID card also does not disclose the exact date of birth
and the PM report also discloses that the age of the deceased as
45 years hence, it is appropriate to consider the age of the
deceased in between the age group of 51 to 55 years. Having
taken the notional income of Rs.7,000/- and adding 10% of
future prospectus, it comes to Rs.7,700/- (7,000 x 10%) and the
claimants are more in numbers, 1/4th has to be deducted
towards personal expenses and after deducting 1/4th, it comes to
Rs.5,775/- (7,700 ÷ 4) and the relevant multiplier is 11, hence,
the loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,62,300/- (5,775x12x11).
The claimants are the husband and children of the deceased,
hence, they are entitled for the compensation under the head of
'loss of love and affection' to the tune of Rs.40,000/- each and
apart from that they are entitled for the compensation of
Rs.33,000/- towards 'loss of estate and funeral expenses' and
the Tribunal has awarded the medical expenses to the tune of
Rs.30,961/- and the same is based on the documentary
evidence hence, it does not require any interference. In all, the
claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.10,66,216/- as
against Rs.6,90,000/-.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) Both the appeals are allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 15.07.2014 passed in
M.V.C.No.96/2013 is modified granting
compensation of Rs.10,66,216/- as against
Rs.6,90,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till deposit.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the
compensation amount with interest within six
weeks from today.
(iv) The amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
(v) The Registry is directed to transmit the records
to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith, if any.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
