Karnataka High Court
Smt Kalavathi vs Sri Ram General Insurance Co Ltd on 24 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45054
MFA No. 8104 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8104 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.KALAVATHI,
W/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR @ THAMMAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
2. KUM.POOJA.S,
D/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR @ THAMMAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
3. SRI.RAMADORE.S,
S/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR @ THAMMAYYA,
AGED 15 YEARS,
4. SMT.SAROJAMMA,
W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,
AGED 66 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT :
Digitally
signed by JAI THAMASANDRA VILLAGE,
JYOTHI J HAROHALLI HOBLI,
Location: KANAKAPURA THALUK,
HIGH COURT RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117
OF
KARNATAKA
(SINCE APPELLANT No.3 IS MINOR, HE IS
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER APPELLANT No.1.)
...APPELLANTS
(BY MS.NITHYA V., AND SRI.PRAKASH M H.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.S-5, 3RD FLOOR,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45054
MFA No. 8104 of 2017
MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001,
BY ITS MANAGER.
2. SRI.AASIF ALI,
S/O ASAN ALI,
AGE :MAJOR,
R/A NO.16, ASATH STREET,
DENKANIKOTAI TALUK,
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU STATE-635 107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4636/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-
14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION AND ETC,.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the
award passed in M.V.C.No.4636/2016, on the file of the
XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru,
(SCCH-14), dated 09.08.2017, whereby the Tribunal has
granted compensation of an amount of Rs.20,95,200/-.
NC: 2023:KHC:45054
2. The claimants had filed a claim petition seeking
compensation of an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- for the
death of the deceased that occurred in the road traffic
accident. The case of the claimant is that he was working
as an agriculturist and also as contractor. They produced
before the Court the profit and loss statement of the year
31.03.2019, two balance sheets dated 31.03.2009 and
31.03.2011, and another profit and loss account of 2011
and 2012. They have also produced the profit and loss
accounts dated 31.03.2014 and also produced the ITR for
the assessment year 2014-2015. The Court had not
considered any of the documents, as those documents do
not reveal the exact income of the deceased. He has
produced the savings bank account marked as Ex.P23
which also do not reveal how much income is exactly
derived per month by the deceased. The Court has
observed that the petitioner has produced a profit and loss
account as per Ex.P21, but it does not contain the
signature of the deceased. On perusal of Ex.P5
accompanied by the statement of the deceased, where he
NC: 2023:KHC:45054
has stated before the police that he was an agriculturist,
but he has not stated that he was a contractor.
Considering all these aspects, the Court had taken the
income at an amount of Rs.50,600/- under the head of
loss of income and loss of dependency the Court below
had granted an amount of Rs.18,25,000/- towards
transportation of dead body and funeral expenses granted
an amount of Rs.30,000/-, loss of consortium granted an
amount of Rs.50,000/-, loss of love and affection granted
an amount of Rs.90,000/-, loss of estate granted an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Altogether, a compensation of
Rs.20,95,200/- was awarded by the Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the Court below ought to have taken the
income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- per month. But the
Court below has taken only Rs.15,600/-, which is on the
lower side. Hence, it is submitted that compensation
awarded towards loss of dependency is not just and
reasonable.
NC: 2023:KHC:45054
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
the Insurance Company submits that in fact on all the
heads the Court has granted compensation on the higher
side and in fact it is a case, where the Insurance Company
has filed an appeal seeking reduction of the compensation
awarded by the Court below. Hence, it is submitted that
no grounds are made out for enhancement of the
compensation.
5. Having heard the learned counsels on either sides,
perused the entire material on record.
6. According to the claimants, the monthly income
should have been taken at Rs.40,000/-, but the Court had
taken the income at Rs.15,600/- per month. As they have
filed Exs.P21 to Ex.P23 Court ought to have considered the
same and taken the monthly income at Rs.40,000/-. This
Court is not able to appreciate the contention raised on
behalf of the claimants. The Court below had elaborately
discussed as observed by this Court in the preceding
paragraph. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere
NC: 2023:KHC:45054
with the said finding. Under the other conventional heads
also the Tribunal has awarded the reasonable
compensation, even on that count also no interference is
called for.
7. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RMS
CT.:RMS
