Karnataka High Court
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Venkateshappa @ Venkateshaiah on 19 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46398
MFA No. 83 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 4653 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 83 OF 2019 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4653 OF 2017(MV-D)
IN MFA NO.83/2019
BETWEEN:
1. VENKATESHAPPA
@ VENKATESHAIAH,
S/O ERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
2. SOUBHAGYAMMA,
W/O VENKATESHAPPA
@ VENKATESHAIAH,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
signed by JAI
JYOTHI J
Location: 3. NATARAJU V.,
HIGH COURT
OF S/O VENKATESHAPPA
KARNATAKA
@ VENKATESHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
SHAMBONAHALLI,
KURMA KOTE,
C.N. DURGA HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK - 572 132.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46398
MFA No. 83 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 4653 of 2017
AND:
1. S. SNEHA,
W/O NARASIMHARAJU,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO.92, 1ST CROSS,
NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
MALLASANDRA
BENGALURU - 560 055.
2. SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BY ITS MANAGER,
H.O.3.E-8 RIICO,
INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPUR,
RAJASTHAN - 302 022.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 20.09.2019, NOTICE TO
R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.140/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
MACT XIII AT MADHUGIRI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.4653/2017
BETWEEN:
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
H.O.3., E-8 RIICO
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:46398
MFA No. 83 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 4653 of 2017
INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPUR,
RAJASTHAN - 302 022.
NOW REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGER,
M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE,
BILAKAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
OFF BG ROAD,
IIM POST,
BANGALORE - 560 076.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VENKATESHAPPA
@ VENKATESHAIAH,
S/O ERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
2. SOUBHAGYAMMA,
W/O VENKATESHAPPA
@ VENKATESHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
3. NATARAJU V.,
S/O VENKATESHAPPA
@ VENKATESHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
SHAMBONAHALLI,
KURAMA KOTE,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:46398
MFA No. 83 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 4653 of 2017
C.N. DURGA HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK - 572 129.
4. S. SNEHA,
W/O NARASIMHARAJU,
R/AT NO.92, 1ST CROSS,
NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
MALLASANDRA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
R4 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.140/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & MACT XIII, MADHUGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF RS.11,52,440/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM FROM
THE DATE OF FILING OF THE PETITION TO TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award passed in
M.V.C.No.140/2014 dated 06.02.2017, both the Insurance
Company as well as the claimants are before this Court.
Insurance Company's appeal is MFA No.4653/2017 and
NC: 2023:KHC:46398
the claimants' appeal is MFA No.83/2019. The claim
petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the
accident.
2. The case of the claimants is that on 06.11.2013
at about 7.30 p.m, the deceased was traveling in a bus
and the driver of the bus drove at high speed and in a rash
and negligent manner, dashed against the trailer loaded
with coconut crop. As a result, the deceased fell down and
died at the spot. According to the claimants, the
deceased was 19 years, working as a tailor in a garment
factory, earning an amount of Rs.6,506/- per month and
utilizing the same for the maintenance of her family,
consisting of herself and the claimants.
3. Before the Court below in support of their case,
claimants have examined PW.1 and PW.2, Ex.P1 to Ex.P8
were marked. As per Ex.P7, the appointment letter, the
deceased was offered an amount of Rs.6,000/- per
month. The Court below has considered her salary at
NC: 2023:KHC:46398
Rs.6,510/- per month and had granted compensation
under the following heads:
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 9,37,440/-
2. Loss of love and care of Rs. 1,00,000/-
(Rs.50,000 x 2)
Loss of love and affection to
3. Rs. 50,000/-
petitioner No.3
4. Loss of estate Rs. 40,000/-
5. Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000/-
TOTAL Rs. 11,52, 440/-
4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants
submits that though it is stated that Rs.6,510/- as per the
appointment letter, the Court ought not to have taken the
said amount. He submits that this Court ought to take her
income at Rs.8,000/- as per the chart prepared by the
High Court Legal Services Committee (hereinafter referred
to as 'Committee' for short). He has relied on the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
NC: 2023:KHC:46398
MFA.No.1863/2017 in the case of RAMUMURTHY AND
OTHERS Vs. R.G. PRASHANTH AND ANOTHER dated
23.07.2020. It is further submitted that in that case, both
the claimants in the claim petition have stated that the
earnings of the deceased was an amount of Rs.6,000/-
and in their evidence, it is stated Rs.12,000/- . The Court
had observed that there is no evidence for Rs.6,000/- or
Rs.12,000/-. In those circumstances, the Court had taken
the income at Rs.8,500/- as per the chart prepared by the
Committee. As this is an accident of the year 2013, it is
submitted by the learned counsel that this Court ought to
have take the income at Rs.8,000/- per month as per the
chart prepared by the Committee and as per the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court. It is submitted that
the judgment of the Division Bench is binding on this Court
and this Court has to take the chart prepared by the
Committee. Coming to the future prospects, learned
counsel submits that the Court below should not have
taken 40% as a future prospects, the Court ought to take
50%, even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
NC: 2023:KHC:46398
this should not be followed in a routine manner, each case
has to be followed based on the circumstances of the case.
It is further submitted that the compensation that was
awarded by the Tribunal on all the heads is not just and
reasonable.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Insurance Company submits that the Court below had
taken the income as per the case of the claimants and now
the parties cannot go beyond their pleadings and cannot
claim the amount as per the chart prepared by the
Committee. It is further submitted that instead of 50%,
the Court has deducted 1/3rd as the deceased was
unmarried. It is further submitted that the compensation
that was awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the entire material on record.
7. Firstly, the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellants that in light of the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court, this Court has to consider the income
NC: 2023:KHC:46398
as per the chart prepared by the Committee. There is no
dispute about the fact that any order passed by the
Division Bench is binding on a Senior Judge, what is
binding in the judgment is that the ratio laid down by the
Court, each and every passing expression or observations
made in a particular facts and circumstances of that case
is not a binding precedent. In that case, the Division
Bench, taking into consideration the particular facts and
circumstances of the case where they claimed, as per the
petition, Rs.6,000/- and, when it comes to the evidence,
they have stated the income as Rs.12,000/- and Division
Bench has come to the conclusion that there is no
evidence for Rs.6,000/- or for Rs.12,000/-. Hence, had
taken the income at Rs.8,500/- per month as per the chart
prepared by the Committee. The Division Bench has not
laid down any ratio that in every case, the Court has to
follow the chart prepared by the Committee, it all
depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
Then coming to the facts of this case, there is evidence on
record to show, i.e. Ex.P7, the appointment letter wherein
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46398
produced by them, saying that it is the income of the
claimant. Nothing is placed on record to show that,
contrary to that, they had taken any other pleadings or
given any other evidence. In such circumstances, this
Court can not consider the chart prepared by the
Committee and the Court has to look at the pleadings of
the parties. Hence, this Court is taking the income at
Rs.6,510/-.
8. Then coming to the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellants that the Court below had
considered 40%, it should not be considered on the head
of future prospects, it should be 50%. This Court has
been following consistently based on the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court that is 40% in case of unsecured
appointment and 50% in case of a secured appointment.
Then, the future prospects comes to Rs.2,600/-+Rs.6,510/-
= Rs.9,100/-, towards personal expenses, 50% has to be
deducted as she was unmarried, it comes to Rs.4,555/-,
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46398
then the loss of dependency will come to (Rs.4,555/- x
12 x 18) Rs.9,83,880/-.
9. Even as per the judgment in the case of
MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED V. NANU
RAM & OTHERS1, both the parents are entitled for
compensation towards loss of consortium further
considering the 10% hike as observed in the case of
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. PRANAY
SETHI², it comes to Rs.96,000/- and an amount of
Rs.36,000/- is granted towards funeral expenses.
7. In the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M.MALATHI
AND ANOTHER³, the claimant is entitled for an amount
of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. All together,
the claimants are entitled for compensation of an amount
of Rs.13,15,880/-
2018 ACJ 2782
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2014) 11 SCC 178
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46398
8. The claimants are therefore, entitled to the
compensation under the following heads:
Compensation
Heads
Awarded
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 9,83,880/-
2. Loss of love and care of Rs. 1,00,000/-
(Rs.50,000 x 2)
Loss of love and affection to
3. Rs. 50,000/-
petitioner No.3
4. Loss of estate Rs. 40,000/-
5. Funeral Expenses Rs. 36,000/-
6. Loss of consortium Rs. 96,000/-
7 Legal expenses Rs. 10,000/-
TOTAL Rs. 13,15,880/-
9. Accordingly, MFA.No.83/2019 filed by the
claimants is allowed-in-part, by enhancing the
compensation from an amount of Rs.11,52,440/- to
Rs.13,15,880/- setting aside the award passed in
M.V.C.No.140/2014 dated 06.02.2017.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46398
10. In the light of the above discussion,
MFA.No.4653/2017 filed by the Insurance Company is
dismissed.
i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
ii. The respondent - insurance company shall
deposit the amount within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the
judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is
entitled to withdraw the entire amount without
furnishing any security.
iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith
without any delay.
iv. No costs.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46398
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
SD/-
JUDGE
KTY
CT:SNN
