Partly allowed

Anjana @ Anjanabai and Ors. v. Sangamesh S/O Hanmanthappa Sirage and Anr.

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2013MFA/30615/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a miscellaneous first appeal against a motor vehicle accident compensation award. The court held the award was lower than calculated based on corrected income, multiplier, and dependency deduction, and ordered the insurer to deposit the balance with interest.

What did the court decide?

Directing the second respondent to deposit Rs. 1,09,500 with interest at 6% per annum within eight weeks.

Anjana @ Anjanabai and Ors. Vs Sangamesh S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.30615/2013 (MV)

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Anjana @ Anjanabai, W/o late Prakash, Aged about 35 years, Occ; Household.

¶9

2 Amar, S/o late Prakash, Aged about 12 years. Occ;Student.

¶10

3 Pooja, D/o late Prakash, Aged about 9 years, Occ; Student.

¶11

4 Durga, D/o late Prakash, Aged about 6 years, Occ; Student.

¶12

¶13

Appellant Nos.2 to 4 being the minors, Reptd. through their natural guardian, Appellant No.1 and are r/a H.No.1-2-52, Rohile Galli & Karakargalli, Bhalki Tq., Bidar Dist. 585 328. …. Appellants. (By Sri Ravi B. Patil, Adv.) And:

¶14

1 Sangamesh, S/o Hanmanthappa Sirage, Aged about 25 years, Occ; Student, R/o Khatakchincholi Village, Bhalki Tq., Bidar Dist. 585 328. 2 The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Main Road, Bidar 585 401. …. Respondents. (By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Adv. for R2 Notice to R1 dispensed with)

¶15

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 8.8.2012 in MVC No.551/2011 on the file of the II Addl. MACT and Addl. District & Sessions Court at Bidar, etc.

¶16

This Miscellaneous First Appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The claimants are the wife and children of one Prakash. Prakash died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.8.2011. The claimants have filed MVC No.551/2011 seeking compensation on account of the death of Prakash. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.4,57,000/- by its judgment and award dated 8.8.2012. The claimants have filed this appeal challenging the validity of the said judgment and award on the ground that the award of compensation is on a lower side.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the appellants would contend that the deceased Prakash was working as a Cook. His income was more than Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken his monthly income as 3,000/- per month. It is argued that the deceased has left behind four dependants. The Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4^th of the income towards his personal expenses instead of 1/3^rd . The award of compensation on all other heads is also on a lower side.

¶21

¶22

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the

¶23

second respondent-Insurance Company has sought to justify the impugned judgment and award.

¶24

I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned

¶25

Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.

¶26

There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and

¶27

the liability of the second respondent-Insurance Company to pay compensation.

¶28

It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning more than Rs.6,000/- per month. He was employed as a Cook. However, no materials have been produced by them in support of their contention except their oral testimony. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken his income at Rs.4,500/- per month. He has left behind four dependents. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4^th of the income towards his personal expenses instead of 1/3^rd . He was aged 50 years at the time of the accident, which is

¶29

¶30

clear from the panchanama. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier of 13 instead of 12. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month with the application of multiplier 13 and deducting 1/4^th of the salary towards his personal expenses, the compensation payable towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,26,500/-. The claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/under all other heads. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants is Rs.5,66,500/-.

¶31

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,57,000/-, which

¶32

has to be deducted from the aforesaid amount and the balance of compensation payable to the claimant is Rs.1,09,500/-. The said sum of Rs.1,09,500/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶33

In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly allowed in part. The second respondent – Insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,09,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶34

¶35

order. The first appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount on its

deposit. No costs.

Sd/- -

JUDGE.

BMM/-

Anjana @ Anjanabai and Ors. v. Sangamesh S/O Hanmanthappa Sirage and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjana @ Anjanabai and Ors. v. Sangamesh S/O Hanmanthappa Sirage and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Amrut S/O Chandrappa Chande

Ambadas S/O Nagnath Vs Chandrakanth S/O Nagshetty Ors.

Divisional Manager Vs Tukaram

Sharanappa Beerappa Pujari Vs Motilal Satappa Naik and Anr.

Rajasab S/O Peersab Shaikh Vs v. Srinivas S/O Venkataswamy Reddy Anr.

Laxmibai W/O Chandrahas Patil Vs Lalasabali S/O Abdulgani Shaikh