IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A. NO.2766/2018 C/W M.F.A.NO.1390/2019, M.F.A.NO.1389/2019, M.F.A.NO.2765/2018 (MV) M.F.A. NO.2766/2018 BETWEEN:
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, No.28 CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560001 NOW REP. BY MANAGER LEGA. (BY SRI. ASHOK PATIL, ADV.,) AND:
1. SUSHEELAMMA W/O MUNIRAJ @ MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
2. MUNIRAJU @ MUNIRATHNAM S/O LATE KANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
3. HAMSA GEETHA D/O MUNIRAJU @ MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
4. DEEPA M D/O MUNIRAJU @ MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS … APPELLANT 5. SUMITHRA M D/O MUNIRAJU @ MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
ALL ARE PRESENTLY R/AT. No.252, KUNTALAREDDY LAYOUT OPPOSITE TO MILLENNIUM BAKERY JIGANI, JOGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
PREVIOUSLY R/AT. NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE HUNSANAHALLI VILLAGE BANGARPETE TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT.
6. MANU NAYAK S/O RAJU NAYAK, MAJOR R/AT. No.253, PATALAMMA LAYOUT, JIGANI, JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H. ADV., FOR R1 TO R5 … RESPONDENTS NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 28/6/2018.) - - -
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 15.2.2017 passed in MVC No.6423/2016 on the file of the 7th Additional Judge & 32nd ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, (SCCH-3), awarding compensation of Rs.17,31,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
M.F.A. NO.1390/2019 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O MUNIRAJU @ MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
2. SRI. MUNIRAJU @ MUNIRATHNAM S/O LATE KANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
3. KUM. HAMSA GEETHA D/O MUNIRAJU @ MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
4. KUM. DEEPA M D/O MUNIRAJU @ MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
5. KUM. SUMITHRA M D/O MUNIRAJU @ MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
ALL ARE PRESENTLY R/AT. No.252, KUNTALAREDDY LAYOUT OPPOSITE TO MILLENNIUM BAKERY JIGANI, JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
PREVIOUSLY R/AT. NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE HUNSANAHALLI VILLAGE BANGARPETE TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563114.
6. MANU NAYAK S/O RAJU NAYAK, MAJOR R/AT. No.253, PATALAMMA LAYOUT, JIGANI, JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. (BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H. ADV.,) AND:
1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., No.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTANARY BUILDING M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
… APPELLANTS 2. SRI. MANU NAYAK S/O RAJU NAYAK, MAJOR R/AT. No.253, PATALAMMA LAYOUT JIGANI, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562105.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADV., FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 18/9/2019) - - -
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 15.2.2018 passed in MVC No.6423/2016 on the file of the 7th Additional Judge & XXXII ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, (SCCH-3), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
M.F.A. NO.1389/2019 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PRABHU G S/O GOPI C.N.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
2. SMT. BHAGYA W/O PRABHU G AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
3. KUM. PAVITHRA D/O PRABHU G AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT. No.369 KUNTALAREDDY LAYOUT OPP. TO MILLENNIUM BAKERY JIGANI, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DIST – 562105.
(BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H. ADV.,) … APPELLANTS AND:
1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., No.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTANARY BUILDING M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
2. SRI. MANU NAYAK S/O RAJU NAYAK, MAJOR R/AT. No.253, PATALAMMA LAYOUT JIGANI, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562105.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADV., FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 18/9/2019) - - -
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 15.2.2018 passed in MVC No.6422/2016 on the file of the VII Additional Judge & XXXII ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, (SCCH-3), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
M.F.A. NO.2765/2018 BETWEEN:
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, No.28, CENTENARY BUILDING M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 NOW REP. BY MANAGER LEGAL.
… APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADV.,) AND:
1. PRABHU G S/O GOPI C.N.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
2. BHAGYA W/O PRABHU G AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
3. PAVITHRA D/O PRABHU G AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT. No.369 KUNTALAREDDY LAYOUT OPP. TO MILLENNIUM BAKERY JIGANI, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DIST – 562105.
4. MANU NAYAK S/O RAJU NAYAK, MAJOR R/AT. No.253, PATALAMMA LAYOUT JIGANI, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H. ADV., FOR R1 TO R3 … RESPONDENTS NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 25/4/2018) - - -
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 15.2.2018 passed in MVC No.6422/2016 on the file of the VII Additional Judge & XXXII ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, (SCCH-3), awarding compensation of Rs.15,42,000/- with interest at 8% P.A. from the date of the petitions till the date of realization.
These appeals coming on for Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT The matters are listed for orders. In the facts and circumstances of the case, they are taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. These four appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 15.02.2017, passed in MVC Nos.6422/2016 and 6423/2016 by the learned 7th Addl. Judge and 32nd ACMM, Court of Smalla Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-3), wherein the claim petitions filed by the claimants came to be allowed in part and a compensation of `15,42,000/- was awarded in MVC No.6422/2016 and `17,31,000/- was awarded in MVC No.6423/2016, together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.
3. In order to avoid the confusion and overlapping, the parties are addressed in accordance with their rankings as held before the Tribunal.
4. The incident leading for initiation of proceedings before the MACT is that on 02.09.2016 at about 12 p.m. one Praveen Kumar @ Praveen and Kiran Kumar were traveling in a car bearing registration No.KA 51 D 5093 from Bengaluru towards Talkadu via Kanakapura and when they reached Thungani Gate N.H.209, Kasaba Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, the driver of the said car was rash and negligent in his driving and dashed against a maruti van bearing registration No.KA 20 ME 593 because of which Kiran Kumar died on the spot and Praveen Kumar died in the hospital during treatment. The claimants seek compensation.
5. The learned Member was accommodated with the oral evidence of PW-1 Bhagya and PW-2 Muniraju @ Munirathnam as oral evidence and Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 as documentary evidence on behalf of the claimant. There was no oral evidence on behalf of the Insurance Company and on the basis of the same allowed the claim petitions in part and awarded the compensation as mentioned above fastening liability on the Insurance Company.
6. The Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award in MVC No.6422/2016 in MFA No.2765/2018. However, the claimants have challenged it in MFA.1389/2019. The Insurance Company seeks reduction in the quantum whereas the claimant seeks enhancement. Insofar as MVC No.6423/2016 is concerned, the Insurance Company in MFA No.2766/2018 seeks cutting down of quantum and the claimants in MFA No.1390/2019 seek enhancement. These four appeals merge wherein the Insurance Company contends the quantum of compensation as exorbitant and the claimants called it as unreasonable and on the lower side.
7. Learned counsel Sri.Ashok N.Patil would submit that the learned Member has erroneously applied the provisions of personal and living expenses at 1/3rd in MVC No.6422/2016 and 1/4th in MVC No.6423/2016.
Regard being had to the fact that the deceased in both the cases were unmarried as on the date of death, learned counsel also submits that the quantum of compensation is exorbitant.
8. Sri.Prakash, learned counsel for the claimants submit that both the victims have left behind big families and they were contributing for maintaining of the entire family. Further, the monthly income is considered at `7,500/- in both the cases. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the same is exorbitant. However, the learned counsel for the claimants call it as highly insufficient.
9. The deceased in both the cases are stated to be youth as they were aged 19 years and unmarried. In this connection, considering 1/3rd or 1/4th appears to be unreasonable both on facts and on principle. However, insofar as consideration of monthly income is concerned, that is also equally unreasonable and low and that require to be increased to `9,000/-.
10. In the circumstances, the compensation on conventional heads is granted at `30,000/- which is reasonable and also the interest rate granted is 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation which appears to be also reasonable.
11. In the circumstances, I find that the learned Member, though was right in awarding the compensation, erred in applying the principle regarding personal and living expenses of the deceased Praveen Kumar and Kiran Kumar and also quantifying their monthly income.
12. The break up compensation as assessed by the learned Member is as under:
MVC No.6422/2016
13. In the assessment of this Court, it would be as under:
9,000 + 40% = 12,600, 12,600 x 1/2 = 6,300, 6,300 x 12 x 18 = 13,60,800 + plus 30,000/- towards conventional heads = 13,90,800/-
14. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case, besides calculating the award exclusively on the basis of quantum, I find the just and reasonable compensation to the dependants in both the cases would be as under:
1. Loss of dependency `13,60,800-00 2. Conventional heads ` 30,000-00 TOTAL `13,90,800-00 As stated above, the learned Member erred in over assessing the compensation which requires to be trimmed down to the figures stated above.
15. Accordingly, the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company are allowed in part wherein compensation is reduced to the extent of `1,51,200/- in MVC No.6422/2016 and `3,40,200/- in MVC No.6423/2016. Rate of interest is maintained (excluding the delayed period). The Impugned Judgment and award in both the appeals are modified to the above extent.
Appeals preferred by the claimants are dismissed.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the total amount with interest including the sum already deposited within 30 days from today.
Amount in deposit be transmitted to the Trial Court.
Sd/- JUDGE RV