Karnataka High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Prameela on 1 July, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24513-DB
MFA No. 7703 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7703 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
NOW AT REGIONAL OFFICE
2ND FLOOR, SUMANGALA COMPLEX
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI 580020
(REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI BALAKRISHNA K NAYAK)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M ARUN PONAPPA - ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SMT PRAMEELA
by SUMATHY
KANNAN W/O LATE THIMMAIAH K
Location: High
Court of 2. SRI NITHIN KUMAR
Karnataka S/O LATE THIMMAIAH K
3. KUMARI NISHA
D/O LATE THIMMAIAH K
ALL RESIDING AT:
DOOR NO.100, PWD QUARTERS
OPP: NEHARU GROOUND
SAGAR TOWN 577421
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24513-DB
MFA No. 7703 of 2017
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
KEMMANNAGARU (V)
NEAR JOG, SAGAR TALUK 577421.
4. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O VAMANA ACHAR
ENGINEERING WORK
H.NO.300, NEHARU NAGAR
9TH MAIN ROAD
SAGAR TOWN AND TALUK 577421
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASAD B S AND HAREESH SHIRALKOPPA -
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 3; VIDE COURT ORDER
08.11.2017 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.4 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 06.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.698/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AND ADDITIONAL MACT-10, SAGAR.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA .J DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri M Arun Ponappa, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri Hareesh Shiralkoppa, learned
counsel who argued on behalf of learned counsel
Sri B.S.Prasad for the respondents.
NC: 2024:KHC:24513-DB
2. This appeal is preferred by the insurance company
challenging the validity of the order that is rendered by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 10, Sagar in
MVC.No.698/2016 dated 06.07.2017. Through the
impugned order the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.19,86,616/- as compensation to the claimants.
Aggrieved by the same the present appeal is preferred.
3. Making his submission about the merits of the
appeal, learned counsel for the appellant Sri M Arun
Ponnappa submits that the first claimant who is the wife of
the deceased - K Timmaiah was given compassionate
appointment by the employer of the deceased -
K Timmaiah. Therefore, through the salary obtained, the
wife of the deceased - K Thimmaiah i.e. first claimant is
not only able to maintain herself but also the other
claimants and therefore no amount ought to have been
awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency.
Learned counsel submits that when there is no loss of
NC: 2024:KHC:24513-DB
dependency, award of compensation under the said head
is unjustifiable.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the claimants
submits that as the claimants suffered huge loss due to
the death of the head of the family, compensation was
granted by the Tribunal and thus the award of the Tribunal
needs no interference.
5. During the course of making submission, the
decision that is rendered by the Hon'ble Apex in the case
between National Insurance Company Ltd Vs
Rekhaben and others reported in (2017) 13 SCC 547
was forwarded for reference. In the said case, the
insurance company preferred the appeal against the
judgment passed by the High Court, where the High Court
refused to deduct the amount received by the widow as
salary on account of compassionate appointment granted
to her in the Gujarat Electricity Board by the employer due
to her husband's death. Thus, the facts of the case are
similar to the facts of the case on hand. In the said
NC: 2024:KHC:24513-DB
decision dealing at length with regard to the issue
involved, the Hon'ble Apex Court at Para Nos.22 to 24 of
the judgment observed as follows:
"22. In the present cases, the claimants were offered
compassionate employment. The claimants were not
offered any sum of money equal to the income of the
deceased. In fact, they were not offered any sum of
money at all. They were offered employment and the
money they receive in the form of their salary, would be
earned from such employment. The loss of income in
such cases cannot be said to be set off because the
claimants would be earning their living. Therefore, we
are of the view that the amount earned by the claimants
from compassionate appointments cannot be deducted
from the quantum of compensation receivable by them
under the Act.
23. In the cases before us, compensation is claimed from
the owner of the offending vehicle who is different from
the employer who has offered employment on
compassionate grounds to the dependants of the
deceased / injured. The source from which compensation
on account of the accident is claimed and the source
from which the compassionate employment is offered,
are completely separate and there is no co-relation
between these two sources. Since, the tortfeasor has not
offered the compassionate appointment we are of the
view of that an amount which a claimant earns by his
labour or by offering his services, whether by reason of
NC: 2024:KHC:24513-DB
compassionate appointment or otherwise is not liable to
be deducted from the compensation which the claimant
is entitled to receive from a tortfeasor under the Act. In
such a situation, we are of the view that the financial
benefit of the compassionate employment is not liable to
be deducted at all from the compensation amount which
is liable to be paid either by the owner/the driver of the
offending vehicle or the insurer.
24. Hence, we find no merit in these appeals and they
are dismissed accordingly."
6. Thus, by aforementioned decision, it is clear that
where the employment is not offered by the person from
whom compensation is claimed, the claimants cannot be
denied compensation on the ground that the employer of
the deceased offered compassionate employment to the
claimants. Having applied the analogy of the decision that
is referred supra, this Court is of the view that the
appellant cannot agitate the grant of compensation on the
ground that the first claimant i.e the wife of the deceased
was offered compassionate appointment by the employer
of her husband.
NC: 2024:KHC:24513-DB
Therefore, this Court holds that the appeal deserves
dismissal.
Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RJ
