THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD v. SHRI. MANJUNATH SHETTY

1. SHRI. MANJUNATH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:2159-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 38 of 2022 HC-KAR S/O SHRI BALAYYA SHETTY

2. SMT. PRAVATHI M SHETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS W/O SHRI MANJUNATH SHETTY

3. SHRI. SHIVPRASAD SHETTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O. SHRI. MANJUNATH SHETTY

4. SMT. PRASHANTHI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS D/O. SHRI. MANJUNATH SHETTY

5. SRI. PREETHAM SHETTY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O. SHRI. MANJUNATH SHETTY ALL ARE R/AT KOTEBETTU HOUSE, CHARA VILLAGE AND POST, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT 3 574 104.

6. SRI. SACHIDANANDA CHATRA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O. LATE SRI. GOVINDA CHATRA R/AT SRI DURGAMBA, MAIN ROAD, KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT 3 576 201. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5; SRI. M.E. NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2019 - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2159-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 38 of 2022 HC-KAR PASSED IN MVC NO. 417/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPUR, UDUPI AND ETC., IN MFA.CROB NO. 38/2022 BETWEEN:

1. SRI. MANJUNATHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O LATE BALAYYA SHETTY

2. SMT. PARVATHI M. SHETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS W/O MANJUNATHA SHETTY

3. SHIVAPRASAD SHETTY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O MANJUNATHA SHETTY

4. PRASHANTHI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS W/O MANJUNATHA SHETTY

5. PREETHAM SHETTY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O MANJUNATHA SHETTY ALL ARE RESIDING AT KOTEBETTU HOUSE, CHARA VILLAGE AND POST, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 3 576 201. (BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) ...CROSS OBJECTORS - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:2159-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 38 of 2022 HC-KAR AND: 1. MR. SACHIDANANDA CHATRA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE GOVINDA CHATRA, R/AT 8SHRI DURGAMBA9 MAIN ROAD, KUNDAPURA 3 576 201.

2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KUNDAPURA 3 576 201. REP BY REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.44/45, 4TH FLOOR, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU 3 560 001. (BY SRI. M E NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) ...RESPONDENTS THIS MFA.CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2019 PASSES IN MVC.NO.417/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, AT KUNDAPURA AND ETC., THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2159-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 38 of 2022 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

1. The appeal in M.F.A.No.4019/2020 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT at Kundapura, (for short <Tribunal=) in M.V.C.No.417/2017

30.11.2019. The cross-objection M.F.A.Crob.No.38/2022 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The ranks of the parties before the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience. The factual matrix of the case is as under:

3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that, on

02.02.2017 at about 14.50 hours, the deceased was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.21.K.9936, and he reached near Samba Sadashiva Temple Cross, Kattemakki, Shankaranarayana village, Kundapura Taluk. At that time, a bus bearing registration No.KA.20.D.8821, came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:2159-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 38 of 2022 HC-KAR deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

4. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition, granting compensation of Rs.23,60,400/- with interest at 6% per annum, fastening liability on the Insurance Company. As against the said order, the Insurance Company appeal M.F.A.No.4019/2020. However, the claimants have filed the cross-objection in MFA.Crob.No.38/2022, seeking for enhancement of the compensation.

5. It is the contention of the appellant 3Insurance Company that the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is improper and excessive. It is further contended that, as the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd and the income should have been considered as Rs.11,000/- instead of Rs.12,000/-. It is further submitted that as the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the personal expenditure and the income of - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:2159-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 38 of 2022 HC-KAR the deceased, the same has to be modified and quantum has to be adjusted. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.

6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the cross objectors - claimants in MFA.Crob.No.38/2022, submitted that though the Tribunal has awarded the compensation in such a manner, the fact remains that, the income of the deceased has not been considered properly in spite of the documents that were produced to indicate the income of the deceased. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the cross objectors - claimants prays to allow the cross-objection by considering the documents.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties in both matters, it appears from the record that the Insurance Company has rightly contended that, as the deceased was a bachelor, 50% deduction for personal expenses had to be made. Though learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the income of Rs.11,000/- per month should have been considered as notional income, the said contention has to be denied for the reason that the learned counsel for the claimants - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:2159-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 38 of 2022 HC-KAR made available some documents (Income Tax Returns) to show that, the deceased was running travel business and he was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. Ex.P- 17 and Ex.P-18 are the income tax returns for the Financial Year 2012-13 and for Financial Year 2013-14 which would show the income of Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.2,39,200/- respectively.

8. We are of the considered view that, in order to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate to consider 50% of deduction towards personal expenditure of the deceased as he was a bachelor, and it would be appropriate to consider Rs.15,000/- per month as the income of the deceased.

9. In view of the above, the loss of dependency is fixed at Rs.20,16,000/-. The compensation granted by Tribunal towards love and affection needs to be deleted as Rs.80,000/- (40,000 x 2) has been granted for consortium.

10. Upon recalculation, the compensation determined by us is as follows:- - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:2159-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 38 of 2022 HC-KAR

1. Towards loss of dependency 20,16,000/- 15,000 + 40% - 50% = 10,500/- 10,500 x 12 x 16 = 20,16,000/-

2. Towards funeral Expenses 15,000/-

4. Towards loss of estate 15,000/- Filial consortium to claimant Nos.1 and 2 TOTAL 80,000/- 21,26,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Twenty Six thousand only)

11. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal MFA No.4019/2020 filed by the Insurance Company and Cross-Objection filed by the cross-objectors in MFA.Crob.No.38/2022 are allowed-in-part. ii) The judgment and award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT at Kundapura, is modified, granting compensation of Rs.21,26,000/- as against Rs.23,60,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:2159-DB MFA No. 4019 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 38 of 2022 HC-KAR iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, within six weeks from today. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BSS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33