High CourtsSingle Bench(2007) 10 KAR CK 0034

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs M. Anusuya and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 5 October 2007 · Citation: (2008) ACJ 380 : (2008) 2 KarLJ 535

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Mohan Reddy, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
M.F.A. No. 10591 of 2006

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 678 words

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—This appeal by the insurer of the offending motor vehicle is calling in question the judgment and award dated 6.6.2006 in M.V.C. No. 388 of 2003 on the file of the First Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (for short ''M.A.C.T.'').

2.

One Manjunatha Reddy while driving the tractor bearing registration No. AP 07-V 780 to Ramasagara via Bangalore from Tumkur on NH-4 on 5.9.2003, lorry bearing registration No. CAS 2529, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the hind portion of the tractor, due to which Manjunatha Reddy fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The injured was admitted to a private nursing home and thereafter shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital where he succumbed to grievous injuries on 13.10.2003, despite treatment. The widow, two minor children and parents of the deceased Manjunatha Reddy moved a petition to recover Rs. 29,73,000 as compensation for the loss suffered by them. The M.A.C.T. held that the accident was attributable to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and, therefore, the owner and the insurer, appellant, were liable to pay compensation. The M.A.C.T. computed the compensation at Rs. 9,48,000 and passed an award impugned herein.

3.

The insurer of the offending motor vehicle contends that the impugned judgment and award is unsustainable on two counts:

(a) That the M.A.C.T. fell in error in reckoning Rs. 4,500 as the monthly earning of the deceased, to determine loss of dependency.

(b) That the M.A.CT. was not justified in awarding Rs. 25,000 towards pain and suffering.

4.

Learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants seek to sustain the impugned judgment and award as being well merited, fully justified and not calling for any interference.

5.

Before the M.A.C.T. the claimants led evidence both oral and documentary to establish that the deceased was a driver by occupation and was paid a monthly salary of Rs. 3,500 and bhatta of Rs. 50 per day, in all Rs. 5,000 while working under the employer by name V. Venkatesh, son of Venkataswamy Reddy. Having regard to the fact that accident occurred in the year 2003, the M.A.C.T. opined that it was probable for a tractor driver to earn Rs. 4,500 per month and that the claim put forth by the dependants of the deceased was not an exaggeration and accordingly, reckoning Rs. 4,500 as the monthly income, deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased and taking Rs. 3,000 as the monthly contribution to the family, applied multiplier of ''16'', to assess Rs. 5,76,000 as the loss of dependency. The appellant is unable to make out a case for interference with the impugned judgment and award reckoning the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500. The first contention must necessarily fail.

6.

Indisputably, the deceased, in a conscious state was admitted to the hospital on 5.9.2003 and continued as an inpatient till his death on 13.10.2003. During the said period, the deceased was under the shadow of death and every effort to revive the deceased by medical intervention, at a huge expense, failed. It is in this background of facts that the M.A.C.T. thought fit to compensate the claimants by award of compensation for pain and suffering. In almost identical circumstances as pointed out by the M.A.C.T. in the judgment and award impugned, the Apex Court in the case of N. Sivammal and Others Vs. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation and Another, approved the award of Rs. 5,000 towards pain and suffering of the deceased who lived for 19 days after the accident under the shadow of death. In that view of the matter and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, more appropriately when the deceased was an inpatient and underwent five surgical interventions during the period of treatment, no exception can be taken to the award of Rs. 25,000 towards pain and suffering. The second contention must necessarily fail.

7.

In the result, the appeal is unmeritorious and is accordingly rejected. The Registry is directed to forthwith transmit Rs. 25,000 in deposit to the M.A.C.T.