Karnataka High Court
Smt Radhamma vs Manager on 4 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36314
MFA No. 342 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 7235 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 342 OF 2015 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7235 OF 2015 (MV-D)
IN MFA No. 342/2015
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RADHAMMA,
W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
2. K. PRADEEP
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT
VOKKALERI VILLAGE & POST,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR-DISTRICT-563 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SURESH M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANAGER,
M/S CANARA BANK,
VOKKALERI VILLAGE & POST,
Digitally signed by KOLAR TALUK,
PRAJWAL A KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
Location: HIGH COURT (R.C. OWNER OF HERO HONDA
OF KARNATAKA SPLENDOR PLUS MOTOR CYCLE
BEARING REG NO.KA-07-K-8755)
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
LKREGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH AND 6TH FLOOR,
KRUSHI BHAVANA,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
NEAR HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
(POLICY NO. 071501/31/12/01/00001136
VALID FROM 10-07-2012 TO 09-07-2013)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAI M PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36314
MFA No. 342 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 7235 of 2015
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.9.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2495/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, 24TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
IN MFA NO. 7235/2015
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.18,
5TH & 6TH FLOORS, KRUSHIBHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 560 001,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RADHAMMA,
W/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA.M,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
2. SRI. K.PRADEEP,
S/O SRI.M.KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT VOKKALERI VILLAGE & POST,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101.
3. THE MANAGER,
M/S CANARA BANK,
VOKKALERI VILLAGE & POST,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101,
(OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE NO.KA-07-K-8775)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURESH M FOR R1 & R2 ., ADVOCATE
SRI. JAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED26.9.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2495/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, 24TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.12,63,748/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ITS
REALIZATION AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36314
MFA No. 342 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 7235 of 2015
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
In these appeals, the petitioners are seeking
enhancement of compensation, whereas the Insurance
Company questioning the liability as well as the
quantum of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the
parties shall be referred to as per their status before
the Tribunal.
3. Undisputedly, there was an accident on
22.03.2013 at about 8.45 p.m. involving the motor
cycle bearing No.KA-07-K-8775, rided by Muniyappa
the employee of the 1st respondent and the deceased
Krishnappa, the pillion rider near Hosur Village of Kolar
Taluk. The deceased was treated at R.L. Jalappa
Hospital, Kolar, Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital,
Bangalore under hospitalization till 29.03.2013 but he
succumbed to death. The petitioners being the wife
NC: 2024:KHC:36314
and son approached the Tribunal for grant of
compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. Claim was opposed
by the respondents. The Tribunal after taking the
evidence and hearing both the parties by impugned
judgment and award, assessed the compensation of
Rs.12,63,748/- with interest at 6% per annum and
directed the respondents to pay the compensation.
Pleading inadequacy and seeking enhancement of the
petitioner, whereas questioning the liability fastened
against it and also the quantum of compensation, The
Insurance Company is before this Court.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Suresh M.,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Jai M Patil,
learned counsel for the owner of the motor cycle and
Sri. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company.
5. It is contended by the leaned counsel for the
petitioners that the deceased was doing Sericulture
and Agriculturist-Cum-Milk vendor and he was earning
NC: 2024:KHC:36314
Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal did not consider
future prospects. The Tribunal only reimbursed the
medical expenses without reimbursing the incidental
expenses and sought for modification.
6. Learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle
has contended that the vehicle was being used by the
one Muniyappa, who was the employee of the Bank
with due permission and he was carrying the deceased
as a pillion rider. The Insurance policy is a package
policy that covers the risk of the pillion rider. The
Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability against the
Insurance Company to indemnify the owner.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that the RC owner of the
motor cycle is Canara Bank, the motor cycle is required
to be used only during office hours. The accident took
place at 8.45 p.m. after the office hours, policy was
issued subject to terms and conditions that vehicles
should be used by the officials during office hours only,
NC: 2024:KHC:36314
there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy
and the Insurance Company can avoid its liability.
Compensation of Rs.3,81,800/- was awarded towards
medical expenses without any evidence and sought for
modification.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on behalf of both sides and also
perused the materials on record.
9. The accident is not in dispute. The motor cycle
in question belonging to Canara Bank, the rider of the
motor cycle at the time of accident was one
Muniyappa, the employee of the Canara Bank, it is
specifically stated by the owner of the vehicle that the
motor cycle was used by Muniyappa, with due
permission from the bank and was not used for
personal reasons. Ex.R.2 is a copy of the Insurance
policy. The policy is a package policy, it is covering the
risk of the pillion rider.
NC: 2024:KHC:36314
10. The Manager of the bank has entered to the
witness box as RW-2 explained that the rider of
Muniyappa was permitted to use the vehicle after the
office hours and the bank has already settled the claim
arising out of death of Muniyappa, who also died in the
accident. Cross-examination of the manager of the
bank has not demonstrated anything stand in support
of the defence of the Insurance Company.
11. On perusal of the Insurance policy, there is
no such terms and conditions, which bars the bank
authorizing the staff members to use the motor cycles
after the office hours. There is no violation of the terms
and conditions of the policy as contended by the
Insurance Company, the Tribunal has considered all
these aspects and rightly fastened the liability against
the insurer to indemnify the insured.
12. As regarding quantum of compensation is
concerned, the Tribunal has taken notional income of
Rs.8,000/-. As the accident was of the year 2013, the
NC: 2024:KHC:36314
person with no proof of income will earn not less than
Rs.8,000/- in the year 2013. The notional income is
correctly taken, the deceased was aged 45 years at the
time of accident. 25% has to be considered as future
prospects, since there are two dependants, 1/3rd has to
be deducted towards personal expenses and the
applicable multiplier will be '13'. Then loss of
dependency will be Rs.8,000/-+ Rs.2,000/- (25%) =
Rs.10,000/- - Rs.3,333/- (1/3) = Rs.6,666/- X 12 X
13 = Rs.10,39,896/-.
13. Under conventional heads, loss of consortium
to the wife and the love and affection to the son at
Rs.40,000/- each, Rs.15,000/- each to the funeral
expenses and loss of estate is assessed. The accident
is 10 years old, 10% has to be given in appreciation on
conventional heads in view of the law laid down in the
Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company
NC: 2024:KHC:36314
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Others1. Compensation
under conventional comes to Rs.1,21,000/-.
14. The deceased, soon after the accident was
treated at R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar and Bhagwan
Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Bangalore. The medical bills
has been scrutinized by the Tribunal and it stands at
Rs.3,81,809/- and same was ordered to be reimbursed
to the petitioners. Total compensation comes to
Rs.10,39,896/- + Rs.1,21,000/- + Rs.3,81,809/-
=Rs.15,42,705/- as against Rs.12,63,748/- assessed
by the Tribunal, thereby, enhancement of
Rs.2,78,957/-. It is the just compensation that the
petitioners are entitled to the facts and circumstances
of the case.
15. In view of the above discussion, the appeal
filed by the petitioner, merits consideration and the
appeal filed by the Insurance Company devoid of
merits, in the result, the following;
(2017) 16 SCC 680
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36314
ORDER
i) MFA No. 342/2015 is allowed-in-part;
ii) MFA No.7235/2015 is dismissed;
iii) The impugned judgment and award is
modified;
iv) The petitioners would be entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.2,78,957/-
with interest at 6% per annum, from the
date of petition till the date of deposit;
v) The Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the compensation and interest
supra within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of the judgment;
vi) Amount in deposit, shall be transmitted
to the Tribunal forthwith.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
BKN
