IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH M.F.A.No.1078/2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.2, ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHAVAPUR, HUBLI. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SANDEEP KUMAR, REGIONAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001. … APPELLANT (BY SRI L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. HANUMAPPA, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.
1(a) KAMALAMMA, W/O KRISHNAPPA, D/O HANUMAPPA, R/O THOREKEMPANAHALLI, THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI, MADALAKOTE POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK.
1(b) RATHNAMMA @ NAGARATHNAMMA, W/O NARASIMHAIAHA, D/O HANUMAPPA, R/O THOREKEMPANAHALLI, THYAMAGONDALU HOBLI, MADALAKOTE POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK.
1(c) BHAGYALAKSHMI, D/O LATE NAGARAJ, W/O HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O CHOLANAKANAHALLI, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
1(d) VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O KEMPARAJU, D/O HANUMAPPA, R/O SIDDAGANAHALLI, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
1(e) MAHALAKSHMI, W/O MAHESH, D/O HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O CHOLANAKANAHALLI, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH.
1(f) GIRIJAMBIKA @ GIRIJA, W/O VIJAYKUMAR, D/O HANUMAPPA, R/O HEMGEPURI, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. VIJAYANAD ROADLINES LIMITED, GIRIRAJ ANNEXE, CIRCUIT HOUSE ROAD, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS [BY SRI B.N. GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1(a) TO (f), R2 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DT. 24.08.2012] THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 2.9.2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.2384/2010 ON THE FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-7, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.8,90,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 2.9.2011, passed in M.V.C.No.2384/2010, on the file of the IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, Small Causes Court, Bengaluru.
2. The question involved in this appeal is very limited. The main contention of the appellant – Insurance Company is that the Court below has committed an error in adding 50% of the amount to the income of the deceased and awarded exorbitant compensation. Hence, it requires interference.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1(a) to (f) would contend that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the law is settled and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment and award of the Trial Court.
4. Having considered the grounds urged in the appeal and also the contention of the respondent’s counsel, there is force in the contention of the respondent’s counsel that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it is settled that if the deceased was working in a organized sector, 50% has to be added to the actual income of the deceased. Hence the grounds urged in the appeal that the Court below has committed an error in adding 50% to the income of the deceased is erroneous, cannot be accepted.
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The amount in deposit, if any, to be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE MD