High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt D C Manjula vs M/S The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 8 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt D C Manjula vs M/S The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 8 December, 2010
Author: N.K.Patil And H.S.Kempanna
9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8?" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010

:PRESENT:

THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE N.K.PATIL_.A..__ '   A.

AND

THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUs'r1cE:H;s'.'KgMpA1~3i§1A._  

M.F'.A. N0.11939 ofi'~2Oa9f(M\/} -. «. " 
IV£.F.A. No.102'29 OF 2007' {MW "  

M.F.A. N0. 10463.gVV2007-£1§2Iv'i 

M.F.A.N0.11939 OF 2o07i'_"~~~A.

Between:

1. Smt.   _ *  
W/0.VSha"s'hi,V NaT;};e'ndra.'f2a0, _ 
Aged"avb01;t 29'7'yeV2;1ar"s   -- .

2. Goutha m.iL," . - a
13/0. Late Shashj 
@ Nagcndra R30,'

  As_§é'L=£ about: 9 yeé1rs.......«'

 7.3'.   : Ra0,

 .Sfo¢ 1\/IaiiutitifR30,
Aged abo'ui'j_ 70 years.

'.4. Smf. ..Sv1'0mfii.'4t3ai,

 AW/0. \-Tei"1kata Rao,

V. 'Ma;_Qr,
' R,/.ar.--'. N0. 438/1,

"Hegganahalli Cross,

vé  .V ___'7JishWar1eedam Post,

Bangalore-91. .
£7 M,[,,,.



Appellant No.2 is minor,
Represented by her mother and
Natural Guardian

Smt. D.C.Manjula.

Appellants No. 1 to 3

R/at. C/o. P.Prerna,

No.963, Vinayakanagar,

MEI Layout, Nagasandra Post,
Bagalgunte,

Bar1galore--56O 073.

(By Sri. H.B.Somapur, Advocate}..__i*~.V_A
And:

1. M/ s. The Oriental Insurance'Co';.,&:vLtd'.»,:   .
By its Manager, " . at '  
Lakshmi Towers', 
No.20o/3, 1 
R.V.Road,__   2 
Bangalore. .1 

2. M/S. U.E'.eDevellopnterttTliadia (P) Ltd,
No.60, Wel'1in_gVtonr«.Str'eet§
Richmond Tow-rt,

 "  . Ba.1iga_lore-56O 025:-t "

1 'By its Ivianaging Director.
     ...ReSpondentS

A:s_l.1oil«i.,1’«l::.Pafil, Advocate for R1;

_ Notieeto–.fR2~disper1sed with V/o. dated 19/02/2010}

*7’r******

A Vtfhts MFA is filed U/S. 173(1) of Mv Act against the

s._el’t1_d’gm’ent and Award dated: 05/03/2007 passed in MVC No.
“S3133/2002 on the file of the XIII Addl. SCJ and Member,
MACT, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH–15), partly

e§e;\.ppe1ie:eig>1«tgi~§

allowing {he claim petition for compensation and seeking
enhancement of compensation.

M.F.A. N0.10229 OF 2007

Between:

1. Smt. Yashoda,
W/0. Late Nagendra Rao,
Shashi,
Aged 29 years.

2. Chi. Manju, –

S/0. Late Nagendra Rae
@ Shashi,
Aged 8 years.

3. Kum. Shashikala,
S / 0. Late Nagendra Rac-

@ Shashi, ‘ __
Aged 6 years. ‘

4. Sri. g
S/0. S311. Muni R’a(‘:)*,,
Aged 70″years. ”

Appelfigants 2 85 3 ardevminors,

“V * ..,Repi.’,__ by gmother and Natural
W V Guardian Smffifashoda.

$11.1 are 4’38 / 1 3,

‘VVBanga1ore’–t_56O 091.

Hegganahafii ‘Cfoss,
Vishwaneedarn Post,

…AppeI1ants

K.R.Ramesh, Advocate)

AW

/”W

And:

1.

M/s. U.E. Development India (P) Ltd,
No.60, Wellington Street,

Richmond Town,

Bangalore-25,

Rept. By Managing Director,

(Owner of the Mahindra 81.

Mahindra Jeep No. KA O3mMA~8557).

The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd,

By its Manager,
Lakshmi Towers,

No. 200/3, I Floor,

R.V.Road, Bangalore.

{Policy No. 423001/20_O2/ A A _
18917 vaiid from 22.o3.’2O07’toV_21..Q3,.2oo3)

Smt. Manjula, ._ V :

W/o. Shashi @_1\Ea_gendra’ ‘
Aged 30 years.’ 2:

. Kum.,i(}o\iafthairr1i,

D/o. Late ShaShi”-@iNoager1’d–ra Rae,

Aged 1} years.’ _ ‘

Responderit’ I\_To.4..is a.rnii1or,
Regt. By her rimther and

V’ _ Na.tfirai.AGL1ardiafi;” “”” ‘”
. ‘Smt. i_3.C.l\/gianjuia.

“io 4 are

R/at. N_o.i91f_33, Vinayaka Nagar,
MEI Layout”,
N agasaridra Post,

A.Ba’ga1kunte,
Bar::ga1orew73.

iiS1’I1t. Soma Bai,
* —–W/o. Venkata Rao,

V Ni.

Aged 50 years,

R/at. No. 438/1,
Hegganahalli Cross,
Vishwaneedum Post,
Bangalore»9 1.

(By Sri. H. Puttaswamy, Advocate for R1;
Sri. H.B.Somapur, Advocate for R3 to R5
Sri. P.B.Raju, Advocate for R2)

ic’.’r*J\’ic’k1’€ic:\’

. . .Re ~

This MFA is filed U”/s. 173(1)=_o£:M\/fivAct”agailnsmghaeiva?
Judgment and Award dated: O6/O3,’/g20{-)7 passedvin. I\ff_._\)’~C ”

No.5353/2002 on the file of the-._XIII Aa:l_dl. Ju£igel,v*C”ouft§ Of
Small Causes, Member, NEACT, Metropolitah ‘Area,
Bangalore (SCCH~15), partly allovvi_r.1’g the claim” “petition for
compensation and to set aside the”3a’me”ir1 so farvasuit relates
to awarding compensation in fa-lsrour Vof..th.e”‘R–3 and 4.

M.F.A.No.10463 op’ 2007,. l

Between:

1. sm:.3Yasho.c1’a,V7-,5 .
W / 0. Late Nagenc1ra”Ra0«.
@ Shas1*ii.._4 ” V ‘ s A M
Aged. 29 years; ~

.s Chi. IVlarij11«,x

/.0. -Late’ «N”ag_endra Rao

Aged 8 years.

3.3. K”am.lS_hashika1a,

V A. 3/0. bate Nagendra Rae

” _@’shashi,

l Aged 6 years.

T ‘4;’lSri. Venkatarao,

A?

_/..»

:5 /”

6

S/0. Sri. Mur1iRao,
Aged 70 years.

Appellants 2 to 3 are
Minors,

Rep. by mother and
Natural guardian
Smt. Yashoda.

All are residing at
No.438/13,
Hegganahalli Cross,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Banga1ore–560 091.

(By Sri. KR.Rarr;eSh,v..Adv@3§%§:te):;
And: AT

1. M/ S. _[§t:ve}.d1:;me1′:«t.V
lndia;{P) —

No.60},Wellingtizfi-~Sf1*f;’ét, ‘ ‘
RichmOHC1″ToWfl: 4′
Bangal0f€’:_2 5, ‘ . A. ,
Rep. by IVIaf1?1gingT’Dir’ectbr,
(Ow«nerL’~af the Mahindra 8:;

” Ma,hir1.(£ra”Jzeep No: “”” ”

. :K_A_§C-3fMA.–3E”:V5_7).

12; ~.’I’h6; ‘OfiCijvtal’~Lr1’surance
Co_., Ltd ., ” ‘
ts “3/Iahager,

Lakshmi; Towers,

*I\’:)..200″/3, 1 Floor,

.R.V”._Road, Bangalore.

.(P’0iicy N0.423OO1/2002/189}?

Valid from 22.03.2007 to

/_..W.».

if v*”””//

” -21.03.2003).

-. …Appellants

3. Srnt. Manjula,
W/o. Shashi @ Nagendra Rao,
Aged 30 years.

4. Kurn. Gowthami,
D/o. Late Shashi @
Nagendra Rao,
Aged 11 years.

Respondent No.4 is a minor,’
Rept. By her mother and
Natural guardian,

Smt. D.C.1\/Ianjula.

Respondents 3 and 4 a1’e3- ‘ _ V
R/at. No. 963, V\/inayaka_.Naga_r,
MEI Layout, _ ”

N818asand1’&i’Vi30A’éf’Ttt.;’
Baga1kunt”e;” 1 A A A’

Ban galore; A

5. Smt, Sornafiai, é
W /o1v._AVe–n’1<a.ta'F~{ao,'t
Aged :10 years, * A: ._ A
R/at. N"c.._4"38/ 1, —

Hegganahailj Cro’ss,’*.

\,/ijshwaneedum_V ‘Post,

E3a’nga1ore–91. “””

A . …Respondents

Advocate for R1;

S1″i_._ O. Mahe_si’1, Advocate for R2;

Sri.””H.BV.Sornapur, Advocate for R3 8:; R4;

R5 served and unrepresented}
A =\”}¢%”£’:’€’I€’}€’}€
“This MFA is filed U/s. 173(1) of MV Act against the

A Judgment and Award dated: 06/03/2007 passed in MVC No.
M5100/2002 on the file of the X111 Add}. SCJ, Member, MACT,

A? ,s,.,.««

z ‘/

Court of Small Causes, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore {SC_CH–

15), partly allowing the claim petition for compensationogand
seeking enhancement of compensation.

These appeals coming on for Admission-‘{this”*idaiI,7=.,ii*

N.K. PATIL J, delivered the following:

JUDGMENL

Though these appeals are, listed ii

Admission, with the consent all
the parties, they are ta}:e*:1flupffolr

2. These three are
arising out of judgment and
award dated Mvc 910.5353/2002
a. in file of the X111
Additiorial JlSmall and Member, MACT,

Metropolitan llA:ea,’r’l’Bangalore (SCCH–}15), (hereinafter

referredlto?–.”as ‘Tribunallflfor short).

= l’lp’r_ila.unal by its judgment and award, has

i awarded a ‘<'5,93,400/~, under different heads, with

_interest a:,_6I% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of

«._its"depoi;'it, as against the claim of the claimants for a sum

?l,10,00,000/- and 39,65,000/–, respectively, on

9-"" /W',

/,
§

income of the deceased at $4,000/«W per month,

deducting 1/3rd towards his personal and

expenses and by applying Multiplier of 'l6' V'

a sum of ?'5,l8,400/– towards

also awarded a sum of ?75,O0O/'§°'.Vto:w_ar:c1s:ico,'nveri«ticfiali'*

heads and in all, awarded a with
interest at 6% p.a., frorn;..the tillitswdeposit
and accordingly, allowed Liitpartv Being
not satisfied v.._th(:r compensation
awarded by aplpella_r1ts have presented
these eriihanicernefgt"§3P.–¢:t;mpensati0n.

4x counsel appearing for

the claimarits. andgjlearned counsel appearing for the

at considerable length of time.

i : perusal of the materials available

on the impugned judgment and award

~.i.i'_fg..'p'assed li)3zg__Athe Tribunal, it emerges that, the occurrence

dfi.the accident and the resultant death of the deceased

.a1_je_;hot in dispute. It is the case of the appellants that

5%,»

deceased was aged about 27 years, working as Recovery
Assistant in M/s. OM Sri Enterprises and drawing the

salary of ?8,000/– per month. To prove the same,

except producing the salary certificate and

the employer of the deceased, the claimaritis'~–..ha:y;e iinoti

produced any documents like exltracptlfif. salary'-.acc'o_un.t_g

or the statements of Current .Account"or Sa\i'ings.Ba;nl’3ncie 5-off” “t.l._1eii”emp1oyer and

assessed the income of ‘?4,000/– per

month.n’i’fhe”«S.t:{me oin,l0wer_””siide and it needs to be
enhanced. Having”:_reigard».,t~o his age and nature of

occupation vth’ei’nur’r1bers of dependents and the

‘ ”’y.ea1=.._@f accident, viVe””re–assess his income at ?5,000/~

iiiiper.y_rnion:tl1:,_V = iQ”L1vt_:~Of which, if 1/4th (21,250 /–)is deducted

toWardsv_v~the2’personal and living expenses of the

Videceased_..,:”the net income comes to ?3,750/– per month.

appropriate multiplier applicable to the case in

-hand is ’17’ instead of ‘I6′ adopted by the Tribunal, in

L’

View of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla
Verma’s case reported in 2009 AC} 1298, since the
deceased was aged about 27 years. Therefore, we re-

determine the toss of dependency at ?7,6$,.0’0i0,/__~

€3,750/u x 12 x 17) instead of %5,1a,4oo/- ax§;:rdee..i

the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded. 3

6. Having regard to the facts a;’1d..circunastancespoff

the case, we award ‘<'10,000/ 5 towardfs-..1ossV oi"V:conaorti1;1rn,d
?10,000/- towards loss of estate,l€'3.0,0.00/-'towards? loss of

love and affection atVti1ef'r_ate « each to the

c1aimants"'r'anAd; ?V1:'G,'0O'0V_/'#.'towardVs transportation and
funeralVV'expen'ses.*:'V'E'ndV claimants are entitied for

the cornpen"sati'on_QfA%7§3,':2fd,00O/W instead of 35,93,400/–

'0 0' «-andv-'.tfhe sbpreakup is "under:

Towar'dsfL.oss"of dependency ? 7,613,000] –
Towards" of ,c'or:sortiL1rr1 ? 1 0,000 / «~
Towards toss" offestate ? 10,000/ —

0 . Towa'1"d§ioss"of1oVe and affection 3 30,000/M
'Towards 3 funeral and ? 10,000 / —
';£I"A'clI'1'S'pOI'Ht'8.tiO1'l expenses
0' ' Total ?

7. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals filed by

the claimants are ailowed in part.

The impugned common judgment

passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.5353/ H

No. 5100 /2002 is hereby mc.’difiea«,¢_ “–«aw.ar.di’n.givvvthe

compensation of 38,25,000/~ ignsteadflotf’.?5,93.,’ét_QC)/’~rA’

enhanced compensation comes
at 6% p.a., from the date, ofpetition t?;.j1j4;¢a11;ati’on’.”V’

The Insurer is enhanced
compensation three weeks
from the judgment and

award.

Out . “enhanced compensation of

a.ts”um__’__oi’ 350,000/–~ with proportionate

V.’-interest ‘SVh’a1f£«,t”)e.._invested in the Fixed Deposit in any

Nationalizedbr Scheduled Bank, in the names of Kumari.

‘VGouth’arni1’,,V Manju, Kurnari. Shashikala, tiii they attain

d_m.ajotr~ity. Smt. D.C. Manjuia, mother of Kum. Gouthami and

._.d.Srtnt.’b’YAashoda, mother of Chi. Manju and Kum. Shashikala

“flare entitled to Withdraw the interest accrued on it,

/W/'””/4

periodically, for the welfare of Kurn. Goutharni, Chi. Manju

and Kurn. Shashikala.

Out of the remaining sum of ?81,6OO/»,__;?b’€l;QElCif:_.Vii

with accrued interest shall be invested in the~vl–“»i.;{e:1 V’D:e:positvl”

in any Nationalized or Scheduled Barak f

‘D.C. Manjula, for a period of»’fiv_e year.s”and for
another five years, with libert$f’V.:.to _herlii-o the
interest accrued on it, H

The remaining jf..l-i”with accrued
interest shall” .D.C. Manjula,
Sri. Venkata._pRa_io;»’; in equal proportion,

immediately, V

Office to draw the Vaocordingly.

sag
Jfid§’3

TEE