Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Muniyamma on 29 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43307
MFA No. 9459 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9459 OF 2017(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, TUMKUR,
THROUGH REGIONAL OFFICE,
#18, 5TH AND 6TH FLOORS,
KRISHIBHAVAN,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by JAI 1. MUNIYAMMA,
JYOTHI J
Location:
W/O. LATE HANUMANTHAIAH,
HIGH AGED ABOUT 55 YEAS.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SIDDAGANGAIAH,
S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
3. SHESHADRI,
S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43307
MFA No. 9459 of 2017
4. NAGARAJU,
S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT
DHANANAYAKANAPURA VILLAGE,
URDGERE HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
5. AVINASH. H.D.,
S/O. DEVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT 19, JAYAPURA,
HULLEKERE POST,
ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
(OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE
NO.KA-13-EA-1578)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4;
VIDE ORDER DATED:13.08.2018, NOTICE TO
R5 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:12.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.78/2017 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
& MACT, TUMAKURU. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43307
MFA No. 9459 of 2017
JUDGMENT
The Insurance Company is in appeal being aggrieved
by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.78/2017
dated 12.10.2017.
2. The claim petition was filed by the wife and children
of the deceased Hanumanthaiah in the accident that took
place on 25.07.2016, seeking compensation of
Rs.25,00,000/-. As per the Aadhar Card Ex.P11 the
deceased was aged 75 years. The Court considering the
post mortem report had taken the age of the deceased at
60 years and granted compensation of Rs.7,94,072/-
along with interest at 8%.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company submits that when the
claimants themselves have filed the documents as per
Ex.P11, stating that the deceased was aged 75 years,
considering the age at 60 years by the Tribunal was not
correct. The Court ought to have taken the age at 60
years. Apart from that learned counsel submits that the
NC: 2023:KHC:43307
rate of interest awarded at 8% is exorbitant. On these
two grounds the Insurance Company is before this Court.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants
submit that the Court below had rightly considered the
aged of the deceased at 60 years based on the post
mortem report. Learned counsel submits that even insofar
as the interest is concerned, as per the settled law there
are no grounds seeking interference with the award
passed by the Trial Court.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the entire material on record.
6. The mute question raised by the Insurance Company
before this Court is that when Ex.P11-Aadhar Card is filed
by them and as per the same, the deceased was aged 75
years, the Court ought not to have considered the post
mortem report and consider the age at 60 years,
particularly, when that document is placed by them. As
far as this document is concerned, this Court is not able to
appreciate the contention that the deceased is a
NC: 2023:KHC:43307
Washerman and in the Aadhar Card the age has been
mentioned as 75 years and in the post mortem report the
age is mentioned as 60 years and the same cannot be
accepted. This Court is of the view that the Court below
had rightly taken the age as 60 years as per the post
mortem report, instead of 75 years as per Ex.P11. This
Court finds no reason to interfere. Then coming to the rate
of interest, the Court below had granted interest at 8%,
which is on the higher side. Hence the rate of interest is
reduced from 8% to 6%.
7. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company is
partly allowed reducing the rate of interest from 8% to
6%. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted forthwith
to the Court below.
SD/-
JUDGE
