Karnataka High Court
M/S United India Insurance ... vs Smt. Pushpa on 11 October, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.1760/2016 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
2ND FLOOR, SRI KATHYAINI BUILDING,
OPP. TO BELTHANGADY LORRY STAND,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
NOW REP. BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PUSHPA
W/O. LATE VILSON @ VINSON I.P.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
2. SAHANA
D/O LATE VILSON @ VINSON, I.P.,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDINA
AND MOTHER REP. BY SMT. PUSHPA (R1),
BOTH ARE R/AT DONDELE HOUSE,
DHARMASTHALA VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
2
3. JOY K.A., S/O ABRAHAM K.J.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT HOSADADDE HOUSE,
KAKKINJE POST, CHIBIDRE VILLAGE,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
DAKHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAKSHITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
R3 IS SERVED)
THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.10.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.1622/14 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, BELTHANGADY, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.17,37,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6%
P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this matter is listed for orders today, with the
consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final
disposal.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing
for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance
Company challenging the judgment and award dated
06.10.2015, passed in M.V.C.No.1622/2014 on the file of the
Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT., at Belthangady ('the
Tribunal' for short), questioning the quantum of compensation.
4. The parties are referred to as per their original
rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the
convenience of the Court.
5. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants
before the Tribunal i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that the
deceased met with an accident on 04.08.2014 and he was
working as Auto driver. In order to substantiate the claim, the
claimants have also examined one witness and got marked the
documents-Exs.P1 to P11. Out of that Ex.P8 is the driving
license, which shows that he was driving the Autorickshaw and
also produced the RC and the permit as Exs.P9 and P10. The
Tribunal taken the income as Rs.10,000/- but failed to deduct
the personal expenses and awarded compensation of
Rs.17,37,000/- Hence, the present appeal is filed by the
Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation.
6. The main contention of the Insurance Company in
the appeal is that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking
the income of Rs.10,000/- per month and also the Tribunal
ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the
deceased and excess compensation of Rs.5,37,000/- is awarded.
Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1
and 2-claimants fairly submits that the Tribunal while calculating
the "loss of dependency", not deducted the amount towards
personal expenses. However, he contends that he was a driver-
cum-owner of the vehicle and the income was not taken
exorbitant as contended by the Insurance Company. Hence, it
does not require any interference.
8. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal
of the material available on record and also considering both oral
and documentary evidence placed on record, I have already
mentioned the documents - Exs.P8 to P10 i.e., driving license,
RC and Permit, which show that the deceased was having the
driving license and also he was an owner of the autorickshaw.
When such being the case, the very contention of the Insurance
Company that the income taken as exorbitant cannot be
accepted. Even the notional income would be Rs.8,500/- for the
year 2014 after adding Rs.1,500/- towards the skill and he was
the owner of the autorickshaw, the same is not exorbitant. The
deceased was aged about 45 years and 25% has to be added to
the income as future prospects. Adding the same it comes
Rs.12,500/-, out of that 1/3rd has to be deducted, which comes
to Rs.4,167/-. After deducting the same and applying the
relevant multiplier 14, it comes to Rs.13,99,944/- (12500-
4167 = 8333x12x14) towards loss of dependency.
9. Apart from that, Rs.33,000/- towards
transportation, funeral expenses and obsequies and loss of
estate. Towards loss of consortium and love and affection
Rs.40,000/- each and the same comes to Rs.80,000/-. The
medical bills are produced to the tune of Rs.32,000/- since he
took treatment prior to that, which is just and proper. Hence, the
total compensation comes to Rs.15,44,944/- as against
Rs.17,37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The reduced
compensation would be Rs.1,92,056/-. Hence, it requires an
interference of this Court.
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 06.10.2015, passed in
M.V.C.No.1622/2014, is modified granting total
compensation of Rs.15,44,944/- as against
Rs.17,37,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till its realization.
(iii) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted
to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith..
(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records
to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cp*
