Karnataka High Court
Orinetal Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kiran on 20 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46468
MFA No. 377 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2014 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
ORINETAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO. 144,
NO. 44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY CROSS ROAD,
BANGALORE-560025.
BY ITS MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE (VC))
AND:
1. KIRAN,
S/O UMESH, AGED 32 YEARS
NO.22, 1ST FLOOR, II CROSS
CHOLURPALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B S BANGALORE-560023.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. K. P. VENKATESH,
AGED 66 YEARS,
S/O LATE KABADI PARAMESHWARASA,
3. RAJALAKSHMI,
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O K. P. VENKATESH,
BOTH R2 AND R3 ARE
R/AT NO.3, PURNA SESHACHAR, LANE, SANTHUSAPET,
BANGALORE-560053.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46468
MFA No. 377 of 2014
4. P. KASHI,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O PEERYSWAMY,
R/AT NO. 178, "B" LANE,
ANJANAPPA GARDEN,
BANGALORE-560026.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (Absent))
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2013 PASSED IN
MVC NO.6520/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 13TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.12,17,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company
questioning the validity of the order that was rendered by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, in MVC
No.6520/2012 dated 30.09.2013.
2. Heard Sri. O.Mahesh, learned counsel for the
appellant and also Sri. K. Lokesh who argued on behalf of Sri.
K. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel on record for respondents
No.1 to 3. Though Sri.S.Chandrashekaraiah, learned counsel is
on record for respondent No.4, learned counsel failed to make
his appearance and submit his contentions.
NC: 2023:KHC:46468
3. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed an application claiming
compensation in the light of the death of Smt.K.V.Vatsala, who
is the wife of the first respondent and the daughter of
respondents No.2 and 3 in a road traffic accident. The Tribunal
through the impugned order granted compensation of
Rs.12,17,000/- in total and ordered the appellant herein to
deposit the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal
is preferred.
4. It is not in dispute that the deceased K.V.Vatsala
(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased' for brevity) is the wife
of respondent No.1 and the daughter of respondents No.2 and
3. Respondents No.1 to 3 claimed compensation projecting to
be the dependents of the deceased.
5. Arguing in respect of merits of the matter learned
counsel for the appellant states that respondents No.2 and 3
were not living along with the deceased and were not
depending upon her. Learned counsel contends that the
deceased got married and was living with her husband i.e. the
first respondent by the date of accident. Learned counsel
further states that a married daughter will normally contribute
NC: 2023:KHC:46468
her earnings to the welfare of her husband and children and
therefore, parents cannot be considered to be the dependents.
Learned counsel further states that respondents No.2 and 3
living separately, had their own source of income and thus the
Tribunal ought not to have considered them to be the
dependents of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits
that the first respondent who is the husband of the deceased
had his own earnings being a B.E. Graduate. Learned counsel
also states that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is
grossly on higher side on all counts.
6. The submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 on the other hand is that
the deceased as a graduate was taking tuitions to children and
was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Learned counsel submits
that even after marriage, the deceased continued to reside
along with her aged parents. Learned counsel further submits
that the first respondent was not having job by the date of
accident and he was in search of job. Learned counsel also
contends that respondents No.2 and 3 who had not
independent source of income, were depending upon the
earnings of their daughter and therefore considering all those
NC: 2023:KHC:46468
aspects the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and
thus, the order of the Tribunal needs no interference.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued at
length in respect of the calculation made by the Tribunal.
Learned counsel further submits that the future prospects taken
is also on higher side. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017)
16 SCC 680, for the persons below the age of 40 years and in
unorganized Sector, the future prospects to be added is only
40%. In case, such a calculation is made, taking into
consideration the occupation of the deceased and her earnings
as taken by the Tribunal at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month,
the following figure would be arrived under the head loss of
dependency i.e. Rs.6,000/- + 2,400 (40% of Rs.6,000) =
8,400/-, deducting 50% of the amount towards the personal
expenses which the deceased would have incurred for herself
had she been alive, the contribution towards the respondents
No.2 and 3 comes to Rs.9,07,200/- (4,200 x 12 x 18).
NC: 2023:KHC:46468
8. Rs.1,00,000/- is given under the head loss of
consortium. Towards loss of love and affection a sum of
Rs.50,000/- is awarded. Likewise, under the head loss of
estate Rs.75,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal. However, such
grant is not in accordance with legal principles. Thus, the total
compensation which the respondents No.1 to 3 are entitled to
is as under:
Sl. Description Amount
No Rs.
1 Loss of dependency in
respect of respondents
9,07,200
2 Loss of consortium payable
to respondents No.1 to 3 at
1,20,000
the rate of Rs.40,000/-
each
3 Loss of estate at
Rs.15,000/- each
45,000
(15,000x3)
4 Funeral expenses
15,000
Total Compensation Rs.10,87,200
9. So far as the other aspect i.e. with regard to
eligibility of the driver to drive the offending vehicle by the date
of accident is concerned, the Tribunal in its order taking into
consideration the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and applying the law
NC: 2023:KHC:46468
applicable more particularly in respect of the position where a
driver holding Driving Licence to drive a light motor vehicle
non-transport, is driving a transport vehicle, has comes to a just
conclusion which needs no interference.
10. Thus, with the foregoing discussion, the appeal is
allowed in part.
The compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru, through orders in MVC No.6520/2012
dated 30.09.2013 is reduced from Rs.12,17,000/- to
Rs.10,87,200/-.
Out of the amount awarded, the first respondent being
the husband of the deceased is entitled to Rs.1,87,200/-. The
second respondent being the father of the deceased is entitled
to Rs.4,00,000/- and third respondent being the mother of the
deceased is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/-.
The amount awarded shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
NC: 2023:KHC:46468
The amount if any deposited and is lying at the credit of
this Court, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM
