Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmidevamma vs Sri Mansoor Ali Khan on 8 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6803
MFA No. 3324 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 336 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3324 OF 2016 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 336 OF 2016 (MV-D)
IN MFA No.3324/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SMT LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
NOW AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
W/O LATE MURUKANNAPPA
2. SRI.LOKESH
S/O LATE MURUKANNAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
3. MS. SUNANDAMMA
Digitally D/O LATE MURUKANNAPPA
signed by NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
BHARATHI S
Location:
HIGH COURT 4. MS. MANJAMMA
OF D/O LATE MURUKANNAPPA
KARNATAKA
NOW AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
ALL ARE R/ATNO.517, NORTH BLOCK,
UPKAR RESIDENCY,
BANGALORE-15
THE APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE
PEMANENT R/O KAGGALADU VILLAGE,
SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572102
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MANMOHAN D., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6803
MFA No. 3324 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 336 of 2016
AND:
1. SRI MANSOOR ALI KHAN
S/O BABU KHAN,
AGED MAJOR
C/O INDIA TRAILOR CORPORATION FLEET,
OWNERS & TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS,
SHOP NO.7, NEAR COTTON GREEN,
RAILWAY STATION,MUMBAI-400033
MAHARASTRA STATE
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
NO,28, 5TH FLOOR,
CENTENARY BUILDING,
EAST WING, M.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-01
REP BY ITS MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 7.2.2017)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1412/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA No.336/2016
BETWEEN:
1. LEGAL MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
NO.28, M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B PRADEEP., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
W/O LATE MURKANAPPA,
AGED AOBUT 49 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6803
MFA No. 3324 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 336 of 2016
2. LOKESH
S/O MURKANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
3. SUNANDAMMA
D/O MURKANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
4. MANJAMMA
D/O MURKANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.517,
NORTH BLOCK, UPKAR RESIDENCY,
BENGALURU-560015
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
KAGGALADU VILLAGE,
SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137
5. MANSOOR ALI KHAN
S/O BABU KHAN
C/O INDIA TRAILOR CORPORATION,
FLEET OWNERS AND TRANSPORT
CONTRACTORS, SHOP NO.7
NEAR COTTON GREEN RAILWAY STATION,
MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4
NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICENT V/O DTD 08/03/16)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1412/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JDUGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.5,62,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM
THE DATE OF CLAIM PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:6803
MFA No. 3324 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 336 of 2016
JUDGMENT
MFA No.3324/2016 is filed by the claimants and MFA
No.336/2016 is filed by the insurer. In both the appeals, the
judgment and award dated 6.11.2015 passed in MVC
No.1412/2012 is assailed. Hence, both the appeals are taken
up together for consideration.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of
the present appeals are that claiming compensation due to the
death of one Sri Murukanappa1 in the injuries sustained in a
road traffic accident which occurred on 20.11.2010, the legal
representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition. The
Tribunal awarded a total compensation of `5,62,000/- together
with interest @ 8% per annum. The Tribunal has recorded a
finding that there was a violation of permit condition. However,
the Tribunal has ordered that the compensation awarded shall
be paid jointly and severally by the owner and insurer and in
view of the policy of insurance, directed the insurer to deposit
(Hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'
NC: 2024:KHC:6803
the compensation awarded. Being aggrieved, the present
appeals are filed.
4. Learned counsel for the insurer submits that the
Tribunal having recorded a finding that there was violation of
permit condition ought not to have fastened the liability on the
insurer to pay the compensation awarded.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that
having regard to the finding recorded with regard to permit
violation and in view of the judgment of Amrit Paul Singh
and another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company
Limited and others2 the insurer is liable to pay the
compensation awarded with liberty to recover the same from
the owner of the vehicle. He further submits that the
compensation awarded is on the lower side and submits the
same is required to be enhanced.
6. The submissions made by both the learned counsels
have been considered and the material on record including the
records of the Tribunal have been perused. The questions that
arise for consideration are:
(2018) 7 SCC 558
NC: 2024:KHC:6803
(i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal
fastening the liability to pay the compensation
on the insurer just and proper?
(ii) Whether the quantum of compensation
requires to be enhanced?
Re: question No.(i):
7. The finding of fact that there was violation of permit
condition is not much in dispute. Having regard to the same
and having regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh1, the insurer is liable to
pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle. Hence, question No.(i) is answered partly
in the Affirmative.
Re: Question No.(ii):
8. The deceased was aged 60 years as on the date of
the accident. He is stated to be a Mason and also carrying out
agricultural activities. The Tribunal has assessed the income of
the deceased at `6,000/- per month. In the absence of any
material on record to prove the income, the assessment of
NC: 2024:KHC:6803
income made by the Tribunal is marginally on the higher side
and is re-assessed as `5,500/- per month.
9. Although the claimants are the wife, son and two
daughters, having regard to the fact that in the cross-
examination of PW.1 who is claimant No.2, he has admitted
that he is a major and having an independent source of
income, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of his income which is
just and proper. Future prospects at 10% is required to be
awarded as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED -
V- PRANAY SETHI & OTHERS3.
9.1 Hence, the income re-assessed at `5,500/- x 1/3 -
`1833/- = `3,667/- + 10%. `3667/- + `366/- = `4033/-.
9.2 Loss of dependency is re-assessed as `4033/- x 12
x 9 = `4,35,564/-.
10. Loss of consortium is required to be awarded to
the claimants as per the judgment of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2024:KHC:6803
Chuhru Ram and others4 at `44,000/- each. Hence, the
same is assessed at (`44,000 x 4) = `1,76,000/-.
11. Compensation towards loss of estate and funeral
expenses is required to be re-assessed at `16,500/- each.
12. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation
re-assessed is as follows:
Sl.No Compensation Head Amount Amount
Awarded by awarded by
the Tribunal this Court (`)
(`)
1 Loss of dependency 432000.00 435564.00
2 Loss of consortium 50000.00 176000.00
3 Loss of estate 10000.00 16500.00
4 Funeral expenses 30000.00 16500.00
affection
Total 562000.00 644564
13. Accordingly, the Claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation of (`6,44,564/- - `5,62,000/-) = `82,564/-
which is rounded of to `83,000/- together with interest at 6%
p.a. from date of petition till the date of payment.
(2018) 18 SCC 130
NC: 2024:KHC:6803
14. In view of the aforementioned, I pass the following
ORDER
i) MFA No.336/2016 filed by the insurer and MFA
No.3324/2016 is filed by the claimants are partly
allowed;
ii) The judgment and award dated 6.11.2015 passed
in MVC No.1412/2012 is modified to the extent
stated hereinabove. In all other respects, the
judgment and award of the Tribunal remains
unaltered;
iii) The claimants-appellants in MFA No.3324/2016 is
entitled to a further compensation of `83,000/-
together with interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization in addition
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
iv) The appellant - insurer in MFA No.336/2016 is
liable to pay the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal as also the enhancement made by this
court with liberty to recovery the same form the
owner of the vehicle who is arrayed as Respondent
No.1 in the proceedings before the Tribunal.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6803
v) The amount deposited by the appellant in MFA
No.336/2016 shall be transmitted for disbursement
in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
vi) The insurer shall deposit the balance compensation
amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment.
vii) Registry to draw modified decree.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BS
