Karnataka High Court
Renuka vs H R Vishwanatha on 14 October, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.No.6558/2016 (MV-I)
C/W.
M.F.A.No.6422/2016 (MV-D)
M.F.A.No.6557/2016 (MV-D)
M.F.A.No.8122/2016 (MV-D)
IN M.F.A.No.6558/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. UDAYAKUMAR
S/O LATE HALAPPA,
AGED 42 YEARS,
R/O ADANUR VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK-577526
2. H.H. RATHNAMMA
W/O THIPPESHAPPA
AGED 45 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE
R/O KONDAPURA VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK-577526
3. GEETHAMMA
W/O RAVIKUMAR
AGED 44 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE,
R/O B. DURGA VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK-577526
4. H.H. SUDHA
W/O PRABHU
AGED 43 YEARS,
2
HOUSE WIFE
R/O LAXMISAGARA VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK-577501
5. K.S. RENUKA
W/O LATE H.H.SHIVAMURTHY
AGED 44 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE,
R/O ADANUR VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK-577526. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. H.R. VISHWANATH
S/O H.A. RAMARAO,
AGEE 55 YEARS,
OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING
NO.KA-51/M-3868,
R/O DOOR NO.375, 6TH CROSS,
6TH MAIN, N.R. COLONY,
BENGALURU-19.
2. THE MANAGER RELIANCE
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
NO.1 AND 2, 1ST FLOOR,
MAGANUR COMPLEX,
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,
CHITRADURGA TOWN-01. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HEMACHANDRA R. RAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.08.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.333/14 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & MACT, HOLALKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
3
IN M.F.A.No.6422/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER RELIANCE
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
NO.1 AND 2, 1ST FLOOR,
MAGANUR COMPLEX,
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,
CHITRADURGA TOWN-01. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RENUKA
W/O. LATE SHIVAMURTHAPPA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
2. POOJA H.S.
D/O. LATE SHIVMURTHY,
NOW AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
3. BHYRESIDDESH
S/O. LATE SHIVAMURTHY,
NOW AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT ADANUR VILLAGE
HOLALKERE, RESPONDENT No.3 IS
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT
4. H.R.VISHWANATHA
S/O. H.A. RAMARAO,
NOW AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.375, 6TH CROSS,
6TH MAIN, N.R. COLONY,
BENGALURU-19. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
R3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1;
SRI HEMACHANDRA R. RAI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
4
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.08.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.332/14 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & MACT, HOLALKERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.35,78,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
FILING OF THIS PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.No.6557/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. RENUKA
W/O LATE SHIVAMURTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE,
R/O ADANUR VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK-577526
2. POOJA H.S.
D/O LATE SHIVAMURTHY,
AGED 19 YEARS,
1ST PUC STUDENT,
3. BHYRESIDDESH
S/O LATE SHIVAMURTHY
AGED 16 YEARS,
STUDENT,
APPELLANT NO.3 IS MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1
ALL ARE R/O ADANUR VILLAGE,
HOLELKERE TALUK-572 143. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. H.R. VISHWANATHA
S/O H.A.RAMARAO,
AGED 55 YEARS,
OWNER OF VIHICEL BEARING
5
NO.KA-51/M-3868
R/O DOOR NO.375, 6TH CROSS,
6TH MAIN, N.R.COLONY,
BENGALURU-19.
2. THE MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED.,
NO.1 AND 2, 1ST FLOOR,
MAGANUR COMPLEX,
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,
CHITRADURGA TOWN-01. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HEMACHANDRA R. RAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01/08/2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.332/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, HOLALKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.No.8122/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GIC LTD.,
NO.1 AND 2, 1ST FLOOR,
MAGANUR COMPLEX,
NEAR KSRTC BUS-STAND,
CHITRADURGA TOWN
THE MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.28, EAST WING,
5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)
6
AND:
1. UDAYKUMAR
W/O LATE HALAPPA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
ADANUR VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK- 17.
2. H.H. RATHNAMMA
W/O THIPPESWAMY,
NOW AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT KONDAPURA VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK - 17.
3. GEETHAMMA
W/O RAVIKUMAR,
NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT B.DURGA VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK - 17.
4. H.H. SUDHA W/O PRABHU,
NOW AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
LAKSHMISAGARA VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK - 17.
5. K.S. RENUKA
W/O LATE H.H.SHIVAMURTHY,
NOW AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT ADANUR VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK - 172.
6. H.R. VISHWANATHA
S/O H.A. RAMARAO,
NOW AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O D.NO. 375, 6TH CROSS,
6TH MAIN, N.R.COLONY,
BENGALURU - 19. . ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 TO R5 ARE SERVED;
SRI HEMACHANDRA R. RAI, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
7
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.08.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.333/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, HOLALKERE, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS. 6,04,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER
ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA Nos.6558/2016 and 6557/2016 are filed by the
claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 01.08.2016
passed in M.V.C.Nos.333/2014 and 332/2014 respectively on the
file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Holalkere ('the
Tribunal' for short).
2. MFA Nos.6422/2016 and 8122/2016 are filed by the
Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated
01.08.2016 passed in M.V.C.Nos.332/2014 and 333/2014
respectively on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional
MACT, Holalkere.
3. Heard the respective counsel appearing for the
parties.
4. The factual matrix of the case before the Tribunal is
that both the deceased were proceeding in the motorcycle, at
that time, a car was dashed against them as a result, they have
sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the
claims are made before the Tribunal.
5. In MVC No.332/2014, the Tribunal after considering
the material on record, awarded the compensation of
Rs.35,78,000/- with the interest at the rate of 6% p.a., and in
MVC No.333/2014, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of
Rs.6,04,000/- with the interest at the rate 6% p.a.
6. In MVC No.332/2014, the deceased was a school
teacher who was aged about 52 years at the time of the
accident, hence, the multiplier would be 11 instead of 13 and the
insurance company had challenged the same on the ground that
the quantum of compensation awarded is on the higher side but
the counsel for the claimants denied the same producing RTC
extract to show that other than school work he was supervising
the land hence, the compensation has to be enhanced on the
higher side.
7. In MVC 333/2014, the deceased was an agriculturist
hence, the counsel for the insurance company contended that
the claimants are the brothers and sisters and they are majors
and one of the claimant is a sister-in-law of the deceased and
she also made as a party to the case but the Tribunal has not
awarded any compensation in her favour. The Tribunal has
awarded compensation taking income as Rs.5,000/- but the
accident is of the year 2014, hence, the notional income would
be Rs.8,500/- as the deceased was a bachelor.
8. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the material on record it is clear
that all these appeals are with regard to the quantum of
compensation challenged by the insurance company and also the
claimants. In MVC 332/2014, there is a force in the contention
of the insurance company that instead of 11 multiplier, the
Tribunal has applied 13 and the documentary evidence at DL and
salary certificate discloses that he was aged about 52 years
hence, the multiplier of 11 has to be taken into consideration
and having taken the same, it comes to Rs.29,60,320/-
(2,69,120 x 11) and apart from that the claimants are entitled
for the compensation on the head of love and affection as they
are the wife and children hence, Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 3)
is awarded on the head of love and affection and they are also
entitled for Rs.33,000/- on the head of loss of estate and funeral
expenses and the counsel also would contend that the tribunal
has taken the split mutliplier and the very contention of the
counsel for the insurance company is that applying of split
multiplier cannot be accepted and as per the recent judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of R VALLI AND OTHERS vs
TAMILNADU STATETRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED
reported in CIVIL APPEAL No.1269/2022 applying of split
multiplier is erroneous. Hence, in all, the claimants are entitled
for compensation of Rs.31,13,320/- (29,60,320 + 1,20,000 +
33,000) as against Rs.35,78,000/-.
9. In MVC No.333/2014, the claimants are the brothers
and sisters of the deceased and all are majors and the Tribunal
has taken income of Rs.5,000/-. The learned counsel appearing
for the insurance company submits that they are not the
dependents and in support of his arguments, he has relied upon
the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of A
MANAVALAGAN vs A KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS
reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3268. On the other hand, the
counsel for the claimants submits that the income taken by the
Tribunal as Rs.5,000/- and the deceased was also residing along
with the claimants and he was a bachelor and his income is also
contributed for the maintenance of the family hence, the very
contention of the insurance company that the case of
MANAVALAGAN is applicable cannot be accepted.
10. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for
the parties and also on perusal of the material on record it is
clear that the deceased was a bachelor and he was aged about
45 years at the time of the accident in the year 2014 and the
Tribunal has taken income of Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.8,500/-.
Now the question before the Court is whether MANAVALAGAN
case is applicable to the case on hand when the claimants have
pleaded that all of them are living together and the deceased
was also contributing the income for the family, hence, the very
contention of the counsel for the insurance company cannot be
accepted and even in the recent judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs
BIRENDER AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356 the
Apex Court held that even married sons are also entitled for
compensation if they are not having permanent source of
income. Such being the case, the contention of the insurance
company cannot be accepted.
11. Having taken the income of Rs.8,500/-, the deceased
was 45 years, 25% has to be added towards future prospectus
hence, it comes to Rs.10,625/- and after deducting 50% towards
personal expenses, it comes to Rs.5,313/- and applying
multiplier at 14, the loss of dependency would be Rs.8,92,584/-
(5,313 x 12 x 14). Apart from that the claimants are 4 in
numbers and they are the brothers and sisters of the deceased
and they have lost love and affection of their brother hence, they
are entitled for Rs.1,60,000/- (40,000 x 4) towards love and
affection and apart from that the claimants are entitled for
Rs.33,000/- on the head of estate and funeral expenses. The
Tribunal has not awarded any compensation in favour of the
sister-in-law/5th respondent of the deceased and the same has
been confirmed. The medical expenses incurred by the
claimants for the treatment of the deceased was Rs.1,67,766/-
and the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the
medical bills in its entirety and the reasoning given by the
Tribunal that he was admitted in different hospital hence, no
need of awarding entire bill and the same has been rounded of
to Rs.1,50,000/- as against Rs.1,67,766/- but the Tribunal while
awarding compensation towards medical expenses in entirety
not disputed any of the bills produced before the Court hence,
the same ought not to have reduced by the Tribunal hence, the
claimants are entitled for Rs.1,67,766/- towards medical
expenses. Hence, the claimants are entitled for the
compensation in all Rs.12,53,351/-.
12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) MFA No.6557/2016 arising out of MVC
No.332/2014 is dismissed.
(ii) MFA No.6558/2016 arising out of MVC
No.333/2014 is allowed in part.
(iii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 01.08.2016 passed in
M.V.C.No.333/2014 is modified granting
compensation of Rs.12,53,351/- as against
Rs.6,04,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till deposit.
(iv) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the
compensation amount with interest within six
weeks from today.
(v) MFA No.6422/2016 arising out of MVC
No.332/2014 by the Insurance Company is
partly allowed.
(vi) MFA No.8122/2016 arising out of MVC
No.333/2014 by the Insurance Company is
dismissed.
(vii) The amount in deposit, if any, may be
transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
(viii) The Registry is directed to send the records to
the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
