Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1342 (KAR)

Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashigauda, S/O. Hanumanthagouda Halli

2025-11-21

CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

body2025
JUDGMENT : CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J. Heard Ms. Ratnamala G. H. learned counsel for the appellants in MFA 102543 of 2018, MFA 102542 of 2018 and MFA 102544 of 2018 who is also representing respondent No.2 in the connected appeals. Also heard Sri Chandrashekhar M. Hosamani learned counsel for the appellants in MFA 102274 of 2018, MFA 102275 of 2018 and MFA 102276 of 2018, who is also representing respondent No.1 in the connected appeals. 2. Though Sri Gireesh C. Kattimani is on record for respondent No.2 in MFA 102543 of 2018, respondent No.3 in MFA 102542 of 2018 and respondent No.2 in MFA 102544 of 2018, there is no representation. 3. For the sake of convenience of discussion, the rival parties to the appeals will be referred hereinafter as ‘the insurance company’ and ‘the claimants’. 4. All the six appeals arises out of the common order that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haveri in MVC 101 of 2016, MVC 102 of 2016 and MVC 103 of 2016 dated 06.03.2018. 5. MFA 102542 of 2018 is filed by the insurance company and MFA 102274 of 2018 is filed by the claimants challenging the order in MVC 101 of 2016. MFA 102543 of 2018 is filed by the insurance company and MFA 102275 of 2018 is filed by the claimant challenging the order in MVC 102 of 2016. Likewise MFA 102544 of 2018 is filed by the insurance company and MFA 102276 of 2018 is filed by the claimant challenging the order in MVC 103 of 2016. 6. As per the submission that is made by both the learned counsel i.e., Ms. Ratnamala G. H., learned counsel who represents the insurance company and Sri Chandrashekhar M. Hosamani learned counsel for the claimants, the insurance company filed appeals challenging its liability to pay compensation and also on the ground that the compensation granted is high and excessive in each of the cases. The claimants filed the appeals raising a contention that they are entitled more than the sum that is awarded by the tribunal as compensation. 7. So far as the liability to pay compensation to the claimants in all the three cases is concerned, Ms. Ratnamala G.H., submits that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle which is involved in the accident. 7. So far as the liability to pay compensation to the claimants in all the three cases is concerned, Ms. Ratnamala G.H., submits that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle which is involved in the accident. The driver of the swift car which is involved in the accident was not at fault. Further three persons were present on the motorcycle when the accident occurred and triple riding has caused the accident to occur. Without considering these facts, the tribunal fastened the liability against the insurance company i.e., the insurer of the car which is involved in the accident. Learned counsel thereby seeks to exonerate the insurance company from liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 8. Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, Sri Chandrashekhar M. Hosamani, learned counsel for the claimants contends that the claimants produced sufficient material to show that the accident solely occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the swift car. Entire police record speaks against the driver of the swift car. No evidence whatsoever was adduced by the insurance company to establish its version that the accident occurred either due to triple riding or due to negligence on part of the rider of the motorcycle which is involved in the accident. Therefore the tribunal rightly held that the insurer of the swift car is liable to answer the claim. 9. The manner of happening of accident as projected by the claimants before the tribunal is that on 10.05.2015 at about 10:15 a.m. while the claimant in MVC 102 of 2016, the claimant in MVC 103 of 2016 and the father of the claimants in MVC 101 of 2016 were proceeding on a motorcycle and when they reached near Mukti Dhama, ones swift car bearing registration No.KA.25/P.0795 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle due to which the accident occurred. 10. Learned counsel for the insurance company failed to deny the submission of learned counsel for the claimants that the case was registered against the driver of the car and after investigation charge sheet was also laid against the said driver. 11. The insurance company has taken a specific plea that the rider of the motorcycle was at fault. 10. Learned counsel for the insurance company failed to deny the submission of learned counsel for the claimants that the case was registered against the driver of the car and after investigation charge sheet was also laid against the said driver. 11. The insurance company has taken a specific plea that the rider of the motorcycle was at fault. However the insurance company did not choose to produce the evidence either oral or documentary to establish the said fact. No material whatsoever is on record to show that either on account triple riding or due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle the accident occurred. 12. On the other hand by all the evidence produced the claimants succeeded in establishing that the driver of the car alone was at fault. Therefore this Court is of the view that the tribunal did not err in fastening liability against the insurance company who was the insurer of the car at the relevant time. 13. Proceeding further, it has to be seen whether the compensation granted by the tribunal in each case is exorbitant as contented by the insurance company, is on lower side as contented by the claimants or whether it is justifiable. Discussion on the amount awarded as compensation to the claimants in MVC 101 of 2016. 14. The sons of the deceased Hanumantha Gouda (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the deceased’) raised a claim on the ground that the deceased was an agriculturist as on the date of accident and due to his death they lost their livelihood. The tribunal apart from granting Rs.2,00,000/- globally towards ‘loss of estate’, granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses and for ‘transportation of dead body’ and Rs.50,000/- towards ‘loss of love and affection’. 15. Learned counsel for the insurance company failed to justify her version that the said amount is high and excessive. Learned counsel for the claimants states that though by producing Exs.P8 to P11 Record of Rights, the claimants established that the deceased was an agriculturist, the tribunal without applying the principles laid down in the cases of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- globally which is unjustifiable. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- globally which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel further submits that the accident occurred in the year 2015 and for the relevant period, for settlement of claims, the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad is taking the notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month and at least said figure should have been considered by the tribunal. 16. The submission that is made by learned counsel for the claimants appears justifiable. Having considered the submission made, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the deceased is required to be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged around 59 years by the date of accident. Thus as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case, 10% of the earnings are required to be added towards future prospects. The dependents are admittedly 2 in number. Therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case, 1/3 rd of the earnings of the deceased is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive. Also the appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the aforementioned decision is ‘9’. Thus with these parameters, the compensation which the claimants are entitled to receive towards loss of dependency is as under: 17. Thus it is clear that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.6,33,600/- towards ‘loss of dependency’. Together with the said amount the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of parental consortium’. Thus the total amount which the claimants are entitled to is as under: 18. Thus it is clear that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.6,93,600/-. However the tribunal granted a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- only. Therefore this Court is of the view that the appeal filed by the claimants is required to be allowed in part. Discussion on the amount awarded as compensation to the claimants in MVC 102 of 2016. 19. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,73,886/- as compensation to the claimant in this case. Learned counsel for the insurance company could not state how the said amount is high and excessive. Discussion on the amount awarded as compensation to the claimants in MVC 102 of 2016. 19. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,73,886/- as compensation to the claimant in this case. Learned counsel for the insurance company could not state how the said amount is high and excessive. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that the claimant by working as Field Manager in a factory was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned counsel states that the claimant sustained multiple grievous and simple injuries and took treatment as inpatient for considerable period. The claimant produced the evidence of PW4, who clearly stated that the disability is 45% in total. However, the tribunal took the disability as 6% only. Also the tribunal took the notional income as Rs.7,500/- per month. Learned counsel states that the accident occurred in the year 2015 and for the relevant period the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad is taking the notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month and hence the notional income of the claimant has to be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month even on the lower side. 20. By all the evidence produced, the claimant succeeded in establishing that he sustained 4 grievous injuries and 3 simple injuries. The evidence of PW4 is that the disability in respect of right upper limb is 25% and in respect of left upper limb is 20%. However the tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 6%. Considering the nature of injuries sustained as found in Ex.P.12 wound certificate and the evidence of PW.4, this Court is of the view that the disability in respect of whole body can be considered to be 10% which is permanent in nature. It is not in dispute that the claimant was aged around 24 years by the date of accident. Thus the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘18’. Hence taking the notional income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/- per month, the disability in respect of whole body as 10% and the multiplier to be applied as ‘18’, the compensation which the claimant is entitled to receive towards loss of future earnings is Rs.1,72,800/- (8,000x12x18x10%). 21. Having considered the fact that the claimant sustained 4 grievous injuries and 3 simple injuries, this Court is of the view that the claimant could not have attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of 5 months. 21. Having considered the fact that the claimant sustained 4 grievous injuries and 3 simple injuries, this Court is of the view that the claimant could not have attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of 5 months. Thus ‘loss of earnings during laid up period’ comes to Rs.40,000/- (8,000x5). Also considering the totality of evidence produced, this Court is of the view that the compensation which the claimant is entitled to receive under each head is as under: 22. Thus the foregoing discussion makes it clear that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,74,486/-. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,73,886/- only as compensation. Hence this Court is of the view that the appeal filed by the claimant is required to be allowed in part. Discussion on the amount awarded as compensation to the claimant in MVC 103 of 2016. 23. The claimant admittedly was aged around 8 years as on the date of accident. There is no denial of the fact that the claimant was treated conservatively for the injuries sustained. The tribunal granted a sum of Rs.7,32,941/- as compensation. Learned counsel for the insurance company failed to make out her case that the compensation granted is exorbitant. Likewise learned counsel for the claimant could not establish that the claimant is entitled to a higher sum than the amount that is awarded by the tribunal. Therefore this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the sum that is awarded as compensation to the claimant in this case. 24. Thus, all the six appeals are disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) MFA 102542 of 2018, MFA 102543 of 2018 and MFA 102544 of 2018 are dismissed. (ii) MFA 102276 of 2018 is dismissed. (iii) MFA 102274 of 2018 and MFA 102275 of 2018 are allowed in part. (iv) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haveri through orders in MVC 101 of 2016 is enhanced from Rs.2,75,000/- to Rs.6,93,600/-. (v) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haveri through orders in MVC 102 of 2016 is enhanced from Rs.3,73,886/- to Rs.4,74,486/-. (vi) The enhanced sum in both the cases shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of respective claim petitions till the date of deposit. (v) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haveri through orders in MVC 102 of 2016 is enhanced from Rs.3,73,886/- to Rs.4,74,486/-. (vi) The enhanced sum in both the cases shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of respective claim petitions till the date of deposit. (vii) The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced sum in both the cases within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. (viii) The apportionment made by the tribunal among the claimants in MVC 101 of 2016 applies to enhanced sum as well. (ix) On deposit, the claimants in MVC 101 of 2016 and the claimant in MVC 102 of 2016 are entitled for withdrawal of the deposited amount. (x) Amount if any in deposit made by the insurance company in any of the appeals be transmitted to the concerned tribunal forthwith.