Partly allowed

Shivalingamma W/O Late M Ramesh v. M/S. Oriental Insu. Co.Ltd

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2013MFA/178/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court modified Motor Vehicles Act tribunal award in motor accident death claim. Court enhanced loss of dependency compensation by re-assessing deceased income and multiplier. Insurer directed to deposit enhanced amount with specific instructions for fixed deposit investments for female and parental dependents.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.2,36,000 awarded with interest; insurer directed to deposit and invest specific sums in fixed deposits for appellants.

Shivalingamma W/O Late M Ramesh Vs M/S. Oriental… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL

¶6

:AND:

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. KUMARASWAMY

¶8

MFA NO.178/2011 (MV)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1.SHIVALINGAMMA W/O LATE M RAMESH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶11

2.GURUSHANTHAMMA W/O MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶12

3.MARAPPA S/O LATE GUDLU BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶13

ALL ARE R/O B.G. KERE VILLAGE MALKALMURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

¶14

... APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI D R NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE.)

¶16

AND:

¶17

1.M/S. ORIENTAL INSU. CO.LTD BY ITS MANAGER, SRI SHARADA COMPLEX,

¶18

¶19

OPP KSRTC BUS STAND, B D ROAD, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶20

2.SRI J K SHANTHE GOWDA S/O KENGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OWNER OF LORRY NO KA.13/8199 R/O JAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE KORAMANGALA (P) HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI M.D. YOGANANDA RAJU FOR R2. R1 SERVED AND UN-REPRESENTED.)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.07.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.38/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) CHALLAKERE,PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, N.K. PATIL, J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

This appeal is by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 15.07.2010 passed in MVC No.38/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Challakere (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for short) for enhancement of compensation.

¶27

¶28

By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,21,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit as against the claim made by the appellants on account of death of M. Ramesh in the road traffic accident.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are: the appellant No.1 is the wife and appellant Nos.2 & 3 are the parents of the deceased and that on 3.9.2008 at about 11.00 p.m. while the deceased along with his relatives returning home on the left side of the road in front of Kalikamba temple on SH-19 Road, B.G. Kere village, Monkalmur Taluk, all of a sudden, a lorry bearing Regn. No.KA-13/8199 came from Challakere side towards Bellary, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against Ramesh and caused fatal injuries on several parts of the body and due to the impact, he succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on account of the untimely death of

¶30

¶31

the deceased in the road traffic accident that occurred on 3.9.2008 at about 11.00 p.m., The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.4,21,000/- as compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit. Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are before this court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶32

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent – Insurance Company.

¶33

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3^rd

¶34

¶35

towards personal expenses of the deceased has awarded compensation which is on the lower side and requires enhancement after re-assessment of the income of the deceased. Further, he submits that the deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of accident, and the proper multiplier has to be applied as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case. Therefore, he submits that the judgment and award of the Tribunal is liable to be modified.

¶36

After considering the submissions made by

¶37

the learned counsel appearing for both the appellants and on perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for consideration is:

¶38

“Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?”

¶39

¶40

It is not in dispute that the deceased died in

¶41

the road traffic accident. Further, it is not in dispute that the appellants are none other than the wife and parents of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of accident, as per post mortem report. The deceased was hale and healthy and was working as a Computer operator in Grama Panchayath, we can safely re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month instead of Rs.3,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal. After deducting 1/3^rd (Rs.1,500/-) towards his personal expenses, the balance amount that would enure to the benefit of the dependants/appellants comes to Rs.3,000 /- per month. In the light of the decision of

¶42

the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘17’ instead of ‘16’ adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for Rs.6,12,000/- (Rs.3,000 x 12 x 17) towards loss of dependency. Regarding the

¶43

¶44

conventional heads, we deem it fit to award Rs.45,000/- as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In all, the appellants are entitled to the compensation of R.6,57,000/-.

¶45

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 15.07.2010 in MVC No. 38/2009 is liable to be modified.

¶46

Accordingly, we pass the following:

¶47

(1) The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 15.7.2010 passed in MVC No.38/2009 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Challakere, is hereby modified, enhancing the compensation by another sum of Rs.2,36,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶48

¶49

(2) The first respondent - Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,36,000/with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

(3) Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the 1^st appellant for a period of ten years and renewable for another five years, with liberty to her to withdraw periodical interest accrued on it.

¶51

(4) A sum of Rs.50,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the 2^nd and 3^rd appellant for a period of ten years, with liberty to them to withdraw periodical interest accrued on it.

¶52

¶53

(5) The remaining amount of Rs.36,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appeallants in equal proportion, immediately on deposit by the Insurer.

¶54

(6) Draw the award, accordingly.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/JUDGE

Shivalingamma W/O Late M Ramesh v. M/S. Oriental Insu. Co.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivalingamma W/O Late M Ramesh v. M/S. Oriental Insu. Co.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M N Nagendra Vs Dr Ajaya Nagabhushan M N

Sri Venkatappa Nayak B Vs Sri Bharatlal Meena

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs T Srinivasa

Mr George a Lobo Vs Smt Latha Krishna Rao, I a S

Sri Veerabhadregowda Vs Sri Ravishankar IAS

Dr Rohit G R Vs Sri O S Siddappa