Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Naveena Kumari on 15 February, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6625
MFA No. 2683 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2683 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MANGALORE BRANCH,
MANGALORE TALUK
REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, SUBHRAM COMPLEX, 144, M. G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NAVEENA KUMARI
W/O VEERAPPA MOOLYA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
Digitally signed by JAI
JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SPOORTHI
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
D/O VEERAPPA MOOLYA,
3. SPURAN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
D/O VEERAPPA MOOLYA,
DULY REPRESENTED BY NATIONAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER, SMT. NAVEENA KUMARI,
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT
SPOORTHI NIVAS, MALLERI, MOODUPADUKODI POST
AND VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 265.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6625
MFA No. 2683 of 2018
4. SMT. LAXMI SHENOY
W/O HARISH SHENOY,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DIPAK MELKAR HOUSE,
PANEMANGALORE VILLAGE,
BANTWAL TALUK
D.K. - 574 231.
5. MR. BADRUDDIN
S/O M. HAJIABBA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MELKAR HOUSE,
PANEMANGALORE VILLAGE,
BANTWAL TALUK
D.K. - 574 231
...RESPONDENTS
(BY KUM. ANANYA. RAI. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M. VISHWAJITH RAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
R3- MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1;
R4- SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED30.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.986/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC, MACT-9, BANTWAL, D.K., AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.27,07,720/- WITH INTEREST AT 6%
P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed by the appellant-
Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award
dated 30.11.2017 passed in MVC.No.986/2014 by the
NC: 2024:KHC:6625
MACT-IX & Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, D.K.,
praying to reduce the quantum of compensation.
2. The factum of accident, death of the deceased
and coverage of insurance are not disputed.
3. Heard the arguments from both sides and
perused the records.
4. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation
under various heads as follows:
1 Loss of dependency Rs. 19,50,000/-
2 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
3 Loss of love and Rs. 40,000/-
affection
4 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
5 Food & attendant Rs. 1,08,000/-
charges
6 Loss of consortium to Rs. 40,000/-
petitioner No.1
7 Medical expenses Rs. 5,39,720/-
Total Rs. 27,07,720/-
NC: 2024:KHC:6625
5. The deceased was aged 46 years as on the date
of the accident and he was working as a sales executive in
Durga Industries and was receiving salary of Rs.15,000/-
per month as per Ex.P1.6. P.W.3 is the employer of the
deceased who deposed that he was giving monthly salary
of Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, it is proved that the
deceased was receiving salary of Rs.15,000/- per month,
which comes daily wage of Rs.300/- per day. Therefore,
when the claimants have proved the income of the
deceased by placing the evidence on record, then without
there being any reason, the monthly income of the
deceased ought not to have been reduced. Therefore, it is
held that the deceased was earning income of Rs.15,000/-
per month. There are totally legal dependents who are
wife and two children of the deceased, therefore, 1/3rd of
income is to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses. 30% of income is to be added towards loss of
future prospects in life. As the deceased was aged 46
years, the appropriate multiplier applicable is "13".
The deceased was completely in vegetative state as on the
NC: 2024:KHC:6625
date of the accident till his death. Therefore, the claimants
might have spent considerable amount towards incidental
charges like food, purchasing of water bed to avoid
creation of bedsore, attendance charges and nourishment
etc., and the Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.1,08,000/- towards incidental charges.
6. Thus, in all, the amount of compensation
granted by the Tribunal is found to be just, proper and
correct and therefore, there is no reason to reduce the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Hence, appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed.
ii. The impugned judgment and award dated
30.11.2017 passed in MVC.No.986/2014 by the
MACT-IX & Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,
Bantwal, D.K., is confirmed.
iii. No order as to costs.
NC: 2024:KHC:6625
iv. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to
the Tribunal forthwith.
v. Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along
with copy of this order to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PB
