Karnataka High Court
Smt. Ranjitha G R vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 25 March, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:12115
MFA No. 2608 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2608 OF 2021(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RANJITHA G R
W/O LATE KUMAR N N,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT 3RD CROSS,
3RD MAIN,
CHIKKA BEGUR GATE,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560062
2. BABY BABYSHREE
D/O LATE KUMAR N N,
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS,
R/AT 3RD CROSS,
3RD MAIN,
CHIKKA BEGUR GATE,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560062
Digitally REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER NAMELY SMT
signed by B
LAVANYA RANJITHA G R
3. MASTER NANDA KISHOR N K
Location:
HIGH D/O LATE KUMAR N N,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS,
KARNATAKA R/AT 3RD CROSS,
3RD MAIN,
CHIKKA BEGUR GATE,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560062
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER NAMELY SMT
RANJITHA G R
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:12115
MFA No. 2608 of 2021
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ANANDA K S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
THE MANAGER,
5TH AND 6TH FLOOR,
KRUSHI BHAVAN BUILDING,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-1
2. SRI SRINIVAS C
S/O CHANDRU G,
NO.3/3, LAKSHMI SAGARA,
VEERABHADRA LAND,
CHANDRU OLD, CHANDAPURA,
BENGALURU-560099
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BENNI RAVISH CHANDRASHEKAR.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 01.03.2021, PASSED IN MVC
NO.1428/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE VIII-ADDITIONAL JUDGE
AND ACMM., MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-5) PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 01.03.2021 passed by the Court of -3- NC: 2024:KHC:12115 MFA No. 2608 of 2021 VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM Member, MACT at Bengaluru, (SCCH-5), (for short 'the Tribunal') in MVC.No.1428/2019. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellants seek enhancement of compensation.
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under; One Sri.Kumar N.N. was walking on the side of the road along with his co- workers namely Venkatesh, Manjunath and Mallappa, on Hosur Main road, Service Road, near Bommanahalli, KPN Travels i.e., from Bommanahalli side towards Garveghavi Palya Junction, during which time, a Motor bike bearing reg.No.KA-51-EV-0412 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the said Sri.Kumar N.N. as a result, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries to his head and other parts of the body. He was immediately shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, thereafter he was shifted to Jayanagar General Hospital, wherein he was treated as an outpatient and again shifted to NIMHANS Hospital. In spite of best treatment given -4- NC: 2024:KHC:12115 MFA No. 2608 of 2021 by the Doctors, he succumbed to the injuries on 02.03.2019. Due to the sudden and unfortunate death of the deceased Sri.Kumar N.N., the claimants who are the unfortunate widow and minor children filed a claim petition seeking compensation against the respondents.
4. On service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent. Respondent No.1 filed statement of objections denying the claim of the claimants including age, avocation, income and negligence attributed against the rider of the Motor cycle and pleaded that there was negligence on the part of the deceased himself as he had not taken proper care and caution while walking on the road. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the claim petition seeking compensation.
5. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.
6. In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, the claimants got examined herself as PW.1 and two other witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P20. On the other hand, respondents got -5- NC: 2024:KHC:12115 MFA No. 2608 of 2021 examined a witness as RW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 and R2.
7. On the basis of material placed on record both oral and documentary, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.15,37,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum and directed respondent No.1 - Insurance Company to pay the compensation within sixty days.
8. Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants - claimants is that, the tribunal has committed an error in awarding meagre compensation, which calls for interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement of compensation.
10. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent - Insurance company submits that the tribunal has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:12115 MFA No. 2608 of 2021
11. Having heard learned counsel for claimants and learned counsel for respondent Insurance company and perused the impugned judgment and award, it is apparently seen that the FIR and charge sheet are laid against the rider of the Motor Cycle. Hence, negligence is proved and established against the rider of the Motor cycle.
[
12. Now coming to the question of age, avocation, income and the multiplier, it is seen that the deceased was aged 43 years, multiplier is correctly taken at '14', the tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses which does not call for interference and the same is retained, so also 25% is added to the income towards future prospects which also does not call for interference. The income of the deceased was taken at Rs.11,000/- by the tribunal whereas, Legal Services Authority chart prescribes Rs.14,000/- per month for the accident of the year 2019. Hence, income is taken at Rs.14,000/- as against Rs.11,000/-, 25% is added to the income of Rs.14,000/- which would be (Rs.14,000/- X 25% = Rs.17,500/-) and 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (Rs.17,500/- / 1/3rd = -7- NC: 2024:KHC:12115 MFA No. 2608 of 2021 Rs.5,833/-) (Rs.17,500/- - Rs.5,883/- = Rs.11,667) (Rs.11,667/- X 12 X 14 = Rs.19,60,056/-). Therefore, Rs.19,60,056/- is awarded towards loss of dependency as against Rs.13,86,000/-.
13. Towards loss of consortium, tribunal has awarded Rs.1,20,000/- to each of the claimants and the same is retained.
14. However, 10% escalation amount is added to Rs. 1,20,000/- as per the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 followed by MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANU RAM reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, and UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD VS SATINDER KAUR @ SATWINDER KAUR & ORS. reported in Civil Appeal No.2705/2020. Therefore, Rs.12,000/- is added which would come to Rs.1,32,000/-.
15. Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- as awarded by the tribunal is retained -8- NC: 2024:KHC:12115 MFA No. 2608 of 2021 with an escalation of 10% addition, which would come to Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, Rs.33,000/- is awarded.
16. Towards medical expenses Rs.900/- is awarded by the tribunal and the same is retained.
17. It is vehement contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the contributory negligence fastened against the deceased at 10% is erroneous and same is to be set aside, as the tribunal has committed an error in assuming that the deceased was crossing the road. However, it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was walking on the side of the road. It is further submitted by learned counsel for claimants that when the deceased was walking on the side of the road, the question of the pedestrian and Zebra crossing and also fastening of contributory negligence do not exist. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the contributory negligence fastened as against the deceased.
18. Even though the deceased was walking on the road, the oncoming vehicle could have stopped and negotiated with his vehicle to avoid the accident. But the rider of the motor -9- NC: 2024:KHC:12115 MFA No. 2608 of 2021 cycle has not done so and caused the accident. Under the circumstances, the contributory negligence fastened as against the deceased is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.
19. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 21,25,956/- as against Rs.15,37,000/- as mentioned in the table below:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of consortium 1,32,000-00
Loss of dependency 19,60,056-00
Loss of estate & funeral 33,000-00
expenses
Medical expenditure 900-00
TOTAL 21,25,956-00
20. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
ii) The judgment and award dated 01.03.2021 passed by the Court of VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM Member, MACT at bengaluru, in MVC.No.1428/2019, is modified;
iii) The claimants is entitled to a sum of Rs. 21,25,956/-
as against Rs.15,37,000/- the claimant shall be
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:12115 MFA No. 2608 of 2021 entitled to interest at 9% per annum for the amount awarded by the Tribunal;
iv) The enhanced compensation along with interest at 6% shall be paid by respondent - Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order;
v) The apportionment made by the tribunal is left undisturbed.
vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall intact with regard to deposit and release of the amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45