Karnataka High Court
Regional Manager vs Geetha on 22 November, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.1908/2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
REGIONAL MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
#5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE,
BILEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
OFF: B.G.ROAD, IIM POST,
BENGALURU-560 076.
REP. BY SHRIRAM GIC LTD.
HEAD OFFICE, E-08,
RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPUR,
RAJASTHAN - 302 022.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GEETHA,
W/O LATE SURESH,
AGEDA BOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT AYANUR,
SHIVAMOGA DIST-577 201.
2. KUM RAMYA,
D/O LATE SURESHA,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS.
3. PRASHANTHA,
S/O LATE SURESHA,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
2
R2 AND R3 BEING MINOR REPTD BY
NEXT FRIEND GUARDIAN CHELUVI,
W/O VEDIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT SANTEKADUR VILLAGE,
SHIVAMOGA DIST-577 222.
4. SHIVASHANKARA,
S/O LATE VENKATABHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT MALALAKOPPA,
SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT-577 434.
5. HANUMANTHAPPA,
S/O LATE HOSURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT B. RAMANAHALLI,
ADIKERE POST,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 228.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.V. MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 22.11.2022,
R4 AND R5 SERVED)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.11.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.428/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT-8,
SHIVAMOGGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,50,000/-
WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION
TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
award dated 07.11.2016, passed in M.V.C.No.428/2013, on the
file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT-8,
Shivamogga ('the Tribunal' for short).
3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants
before the Tribunal is that the deceased, who was aged about 5
years met with an accident on 22.09.201 and as a result of the
accidental injuries, he succumbed to the injuries and hence claim
was made before the Tribunal. The claimants are the mother
and minor brother and sister of the deceased. The claimants in
order to substantiate their claim examined one witness as P.W.1
and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 13. On the other
hand, the respondent did not lead any evidence, however got
marked the document policy as Ex.R.1. The Tribunal after
considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record allowed the claim petition granting compensation of
Rs.5,50,000/- with 9% interest. Hence, the present appeal is
filed by the Insurance Company.
4. The main contention of the Insurance Company is
that the Tribunal committed a serious error in taking into
consideration the Apex Court judgment in the case of KISHAN
GOPAL AND ANOTHER v. LALA AND OTHERS reported in
(2014) 1 SCC 244 and further the Tribunal committed an error
in relying upon the decision of High Court of Karnataka rendered
in M.F.A.No.640/2012. The learned counsel would contend
that the Tribunal should have considered respondent No.1 alone
as a person entitled to get the compensation and in that view of
the matter, a sum of Rs.15,000/- should have been deducted
out of Rs.30,000/- determined as notional income of the
deceased. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal
committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards
funeral expenses. The learned counsel would contend that the
Tribunal committed a serious error in granting interest at the
rate of 9% per annum contrary to Section 149(1) of MV Act and
Section 34 of CPC. The learned counsel in support of his
submission relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of MEENA DEVI v. NUNU CHAND MAHTO @ NEMCHAND
MAHTO AND OTHERS reported in 2022 SAR (Civil) 1057,
wherein for the death of a child aged about 12 years, the Apex
Court granted the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with 7%
interest and hence the learned counsel would contend that the
interest may be awarded at 6% per annum.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent
claimants submits that the Tribunal has not committed any error
in awarding the compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-. The learned
counsel would contend that the interest allowed at 7% per
annum by the Apex Court was in a case of the accident of the
year 2003 and this accident was occurred in 2012 and hence the
judgment which was rendered in 2014 by the Apex Court
allowing 9% interest cannot be reduced.
6. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also
on perusal of the material available on record and also
considering the judgment of Meena Devi (supra), the Apex
Court while disposing of a case of minor aged about 11 years
considered the multiplicand of '15' based on the judgments of
the Apex Court in the cases of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v.
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported
in 2009 SAR (Civ) 592, Kishan Gopal (supra) and KURVAN
ANSARI @ KURVAN ALI AND ANOTHER v. SHYAM KISHORE
MURMU AND ANOTHER reported in 2021 Spp. SAR (Civ)
776 and awarded 7% interest.
7. Having perused the material available on record, this
is a claim with regard to the accident of the year 2012 and in the
case of Meena Devi (supra), the accident was occurred in 2003.
Having considered the said fact into consideration and the
judgment in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplicand of
'15' has to be applied. The Apex Court in the case of Kurvan
Ansari (supra) discussed with regard to the taking of the
notional income of the minor deceased at Rs.25,000/- and in the
case of Kishan Gopal (supra) Rs.30,000/- is taken as notional
income of the deceased and ultimately the Apex Court accepted
the notional income of Rs.30,000/- in the case of Meena Devi
(supra).
8. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Meena Devi (supra), notional income is taken as
Rs.30,000/- including future prospects and applying the
multiplier of '15', the loss of dependency comes to
Rs.4,50,000/-. Apart from that, the claimants are entitled for
an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the conventional head. In all,
the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
The Tribunal committed an error in awarding Rs.50,000/-
towards funeral expenses as contended by the learned counsel
for the appellant and hence the same is set aside.
9. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Kishan Gopal (supra), the very contention of the
learned counsel for the Insurance Company that interest has to
be reduced to 6% cannot be accepted and hence the interest is
awarded at the rate of 9% per annum.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 07.11.2016, passed in
M.V.C.No.428/2013, is modified reducing the
compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- from
Rs.5,50,000/- with interest at 9% 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 concerned Tribunal
forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
