The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15615-DB MFA No.2092/2022 C/W MFA No.758/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2092/2022 (MV-D) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.758/2022 (MV-D) C/W IN MFA NO. 2092/2022 BETWEEN: THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD. E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAPURA, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN – 302 022 NOW REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD. NO.3/5, III FLOOR, S V ARCADE BILAKALLI MAIN ROAD OFF B.G. ROAD, IIM POST BENGALURU – 560 076 (BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MS.SINDHU CHEPURI D/O LATE RAMESH BABU CHEPURI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS NO.1, 1ST FLOOR VIJAYALAKSHMI NILAYA DATTATREYANAGAR 8TH A MAIN ROAD HOSAKEREHALLI BANGALORE – 560 085 2. MRS. P. RANJITHA W/O RAMESH BABU Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: High Court of Karnataka …APPELLANT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15615-DB MFA No.2092/2022 C/W MFA No.758/2022 D/O LATE RAMESH BABU CHEPURI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.26, SIRIHANGAM FLAT NO.101, UTTARAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 085 3. SHRI. GOPI ANICHETTY MUNICHANDRAIAH S/O A. MUNICHANDRAIAH NO.9-384, PALLIPATTU ROAD NAGARI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT SRI ADUSUMELLI MUNIRATHNAM S/O LATE CHENGAPPA NO.5-50, BODEVARIPALLI (V) EDIGAPALLI (P.O), PUNGANURU (M) CHITTOOR DISTRICT 4TH RESPONDENT’S LRS 4. NIRMALA W/O ADUSUMELI MUNIRATHNAM MAJOR 5. MS. KIRANMAYI D/O ADUSUMELI MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
Legal Reasoning
6. MS. MOUNIKA D/O ADUSUMELI MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R4 TO R6 ARE R/AT NO.5-50 BODEVARIPALLI(V) EDIGAPALLI (PO) PUNGANURU (M) CHITTOOR DISTRICT … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.C.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.NARAYANA SWAMY. G, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3 TO R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.839/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (S.C.C.H-1), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 49,14,650/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15615-DB MFA No.2092/2022 C/W MFA No.758/2022 IN MFA NO.758/2022 BETWEEN: 1. MS.SINDHU CHEPURI D/O.LATE RAMESH BABU CHEPURI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1, VIJAYALAKSHMINILAYA 8TH ‘A’ MAIN ROAD, DATTATHREYANAGAR HOSKEREHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 085 2. MRS.P RANJITHA W/O RAMANATH BABU D/O LATE RAMESH BABU CHEPURI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.26, SIRIHANGAM FLAT NO.101, UTTARHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 085 … APPELLANTS (BY SRI.C.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.NARAYANA SWAMY. G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI.GOPIANICHETTY MUNICHANDRAIAH S/O.A MUNICHANDRAIAH NO.9-384, PALLIPATTU ROAD NAGARI CHITOOR DISTRICT – 571 001 (R.C. OWNER OF INNOVA CAR BEARING REGISTRATION NO.AP 27 AD 3636) SRI ADUSUMELLI MUNIRATHNAM S/O LATE CHENGAPPA (POLICY HOLDER OF INNOVA CAR BEARING REGISTRATION NO. AP 27 AD 3636 SINCE DEAD BY LR’S R2 TO R4 2. MRS.NIRMALA W/O ADUSUMELI MUNIRATHNAM MAJOR 3. MS. KIRANMAYI D/O ADUSUMELI MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 4. MS. MOUNIKA D/O ADUSUMELI MUNIRATHNAM - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15615-DB MFA No.2092/2022 C/W MFA No.758/2022 AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R2 TO R4 ARE R/AT NO.5-50 BODEVARIPALLI(V) EDIGAPALLI (PO) PUNGANURU (M) CHITTOOR DISTRICT – 571 001 5. SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN – 302 022 (INSURER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.AP 27 AD 3636 POLICY NO.10003/31/15/412992 VALID FROM 18-11-2014 TO 17-11-2015 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R1 TO R4 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.10.2021 IN MVC NO.839/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-1), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. COMPENSATION PETITION AND FOR THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) These appeals arise out of the judgment and award in MVC No.839/2018 passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Prl. MACT, Bengaluru. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15615-DB MFA No.2092/2022 C/W MFA No.758/2022 2. Appellant in MFA No.2092/2022 was respondent No.3, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were claimant Nos.1 and 2, respondent No.3 and 4 were respondent Nos.1 and 2 in MVC No.839/2018. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal. 3. Claimants are the married daughters of the deceased C.Ramesh Babu. On 17.08.2015 at 2.00 a.m. when Ramesh Babu was traveling near Bathalapalli, Mandal in Innova Car bearing Registration No.AP-27/AD 3636, the said car met with an accident and Ramesh Babu succumbed to the accidental injuries. Regarding the accident on the basis of the complaint as per Ex.P1 Bathalahalli Police registered FIR in Crime No.101/2015 of their Police Station against the driver of the said car for the offences punishable under Section 337 and 304A of IPC. On investigation, the charge sheet as per Ex.P5 was filed against the driver of the car. During the relevant time, respondent No.1 was the registered owner of the car, respondent No.2 had taken insurance policy for the said car and the said policy was issued by respondent No.3. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15615-DB MFA No.2092/2022 C/W MFA No.758/2022 4. Claimants filed MVC No.839/2018 contending that the accident and death of Ramesh Babu occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of the aforesaid car. They further contended that the deceased was working as Superintendent in the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr Dn), Madanapalle earning Rs.77,759/- per month and they were depending on his income. They further contended that due to the death of Ramesh Babu, they have suffered financial and emotional damages to the tune of Rs.1 crore and respondents are liable to compensate the same. 5. During the pendency of the petition, respondent No.2/Insured died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.2 (a) to (c). Respondent No.1 and legal representatives of respondent No.2 did not contest the petition. Respondent No.3/Insurer alone contested the petition. Respondent No.3 in its pleadings admitted the issuance of the policy covering vehicle No.AP-27/AD-3636 and it was also admitted that respondent No.2 was the insured and respondent No.1 was the registered owner of the vehicle. However, it was contended that driver of the car was not holding valid and effective driving licence and dependency of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15615-DB MFA No.2092/2022 C/W MFA No.758/2022 the claimants on the deceased was denied. It was further contended that the vehicle was a private car and the deceased had hired the same on rent. Therefore, there was breach of condition of the policy and respondent No.3 was not liable to compensate the damages. 6. The Tribunal on raising necessary issues recorded the evidence. On behalf of claimants, claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1, Superintendent of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr Dn), Madanapalli was examined as PW.2 and Exs.P1 and P21 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.3 its Manager was examined as RW.1 and Package Policy Endorsement Schedule of the vehicle was marked at Ex.R1. 7. Tribunal on hearing the parties by the impugned award held that the accident and death of Ramesh Babu occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending car. Tribunal based on pan card of the deceased considered his age as 57 years assessed his income at Rs.77,559/-, deducted professional tax and income tax from that. Further Tribunal deducted one third from the income for the personal expenses of the deceased, applied 9 multiplier and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15615-DB MFA No.2092/2022 C/W MFA No.758/2022 awarded compensation of Rs.48,04,650/- on the head of loss of dependency. 8. Tribunal in all awarded Rs.49,14,650/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization payable by respondent No.3/Insurer as follows: Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. Particulars Loss of dependency Loss of Estate Funeral expenses Compensation awarded in Rs. 48,04,650/- 15,000/- 15,000/- 4. Loss of parental consortium 80,000/- Total 49,14,650/- 9. Challenging the said award, the Insurer has preferred MFA No.2092/2022. Questioning the adequacy of compensation claimants have filed MFA No.758/2022. Submissions of Sri A.N.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the Insurer. 10. Claimant Nos. 1 and 2 both being married daughters cannot be considered as dependants of the deceased. The evidence of PW.1 shows that she was working as teacher and earning Rs.22,000/- per month. Claimant No.2 was living separately in her matrimonial home. Therefore, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15615-DB MFA No.2092/2022 C/W MFA No.758/2022 Tribunal was in error in considering both the claimants as dependants. Tribunal should have deducted 50% of the income of the deceased for his personal expenses. The compensation awarded on all heads is on the higher side. As the policy was taken by respondent No.2, the risk incurred by respondent No.1 is not liable to be indemnified. The daughters are entitled to compensation only on the head of loss of estate and not on the head of loss of dependency. 11. In support of such submissions, he relies on the following judgment: National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Birendar and ors1 Submissions of Sri Ravi Shankar learned counsel for the claimants: 12. Though claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the married daughters, they had no income of their own and they were dependants of the deceased. So far claimant No.1, she had troubled marriage and she had no employment. At the time of occurrence of the accident she was living with her father. The evidence that they were depending on the income of the father is not discredited, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in 1 AIR 2020 SC 434 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15615-DB MFA No.2092/2022 C/W MFA No.758/2022 considering them as dependants. Tribunal committed error in not awarding future prospects on the income of the deceased. Since the claimants have not received any sum, they are entitled to escalation at 10% on the compensation payable on the conventional heads. 13. In support of his submissions he relies on the following judgments: i) Seema Rani & Ors vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors.2 ii) Baby and others vs. Nagendra Kumar and another3 14. On considering the submissions of both side and on examination of the material on record, the points that arise for determination of the Court are: i) Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the impugned award is just and fair one ? ii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal regarding liability of the Insurer is sustainable ? Analysis: Reg. Point No.1 15. Insurer has not disputed the occurrence of the accident involving Innova car bearing registration No.AP- 27/AD-3636. Insurer in para 4 of its written statement 2 2025 INSC 192 3 MFA NO.7070/2014 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15615-DB MFA No.2092/2022 C/W MFA No.758/2022 unequivocally admitted that it had issued policy in respect of the aforesaid vehicle and the same was in force as on the date of the accident. It was also not disputed that at the time of the accident deceased was aged 57 years and he was employed as Superintendent in the Judicial Department. The claimants’ relationship with the deceased was also not disputed. 16. So far as dependency, claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1. She deposed that her marriage was solemnized on 08.03.2015 that was just about 5 months prior to the death of her father, but her marriage was broken and she was depending on her father. She also deposed that after the death of her father, her mother also passed away within a short span of time. Both herself and her sibling became orphans. In her cross examination, she denied the suggestion that she was not depending on her father. It is true that she admitted that in the matrimonial case she was awarded permanent alimony. But that itself does not reduce her dependency for the whole life time as she was aged hardly 30 years at the time of her deposition. So far as the claimant No.2, there was no whisper in the cross examination of the witness to deny her dependancy. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15615-DB MFA No.2092/2022 C/W MFA No.758/2022 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 15 of its judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Birendar and others4 in that regard held as follows: “15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000/ and Rs.1,50,000/ per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.” (Emphasis supplied) 18. In view of the aforesaid judgment and material on record, there is no merit in the contention that the claimants were not dependent on the income of the deceased and they are not entitled to compensation on the head of loss of dependency. 4 AIR 2020 SC 434 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15615-DB MFA No.2092/2022 C/W MFA No.758/2022 19. Ex.P7 salary slip of the deceased and the evidence of PW.2/representative of the employer of the deceased show that at the time of the accident deceased Ramesh Babu was employed as Superintendent in the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Madanapalli. As per the said record gross salary of the deceased was Rs.77,759/- for the month of July 2015. Out of that Rs.200 has to be deducted towards professional tax, therefore income comes to Rs(77,759-200=)77,559/-. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi5 and having regard to the age and employment of the deceased 15% has to be super added by way of future prospects. Therefore, his income would be Rs.(77,559+15/100=11633 rounded off to Rs.11,634/-) Rs.89,193/-. Therefore, his annual income would be Rs.(77559+11634=)(89,193 X 12)=10,70,316/-. As per the Finance Act, 2015 the tax payable on such income is Rs.1,46,095/-. Therefore his income after income tax would be Rs.(10,70,316–1,46,095=) 9,24,221/-. There are two claimants/dependants. As per Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation6 one third has to be deducted for the personal
Decision
ORDER i) MFA No.2092/2022 is dismissed. ii) iii) a) b) c) d) - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:15615-DB MFA No.2092/2022 C/W MFA No.758/2022 MFA No.758/2022 is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified as follows: Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.7,73,675/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till it’s realization. The award of the Tribunal with regard to apportionment and investment is maintained. The amount in deposit and TCRs shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Respondent No.3/Insurer shall deposit the aforesaid compensation on adjusting the amount already deposited, if any, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. e) In view of disposal of the matter, pending IAs stood disposed of. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE AKC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49