Partly allowed

Manjunath Malla Naik v. Devendra S/O Honnappa Naik

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2014MFA/23701/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a miscellaneous first appeal seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation. The court approached the case on merits, increased the assessed monthly income and adjusted allowances, enhancing the total compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal from Rs.1,18,000 to Rs.2,19,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,18,000 to Rs.2,19,000 with interest at 6% p.a. payable by the insurance company and the driver in proportion to their respective liabilities.

Manjunath Malla Naik Vs Devendra S/O Honnappa Naik — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23701/2010 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANJUNATH MALLA NAIK S/O MALLA NAIK AGE: 33 YEARS OCC: COOLIE

¶9

SHRIDHAR MALL NAIK S/O MALLA NAIK AGE: 29 YEARS

¶10

OCC: COOLIE

¶11

BOTH R/O: PURVARGA BHATKAL, NOW RESIDING AT DURGADEVI TEMPLE KODIBAG, KARWAR-581 301 UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. S. N. BOOTHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V. P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

DEVENDRA S/O HONNAPPA NAIK AGE: 45 YEARS REGD. OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE

¶16

¶17

BEARING NO.KA-47/H-892 R/O ‘POOJA’ NILAY, PURVARGA POST: SARPANKATTA, BHATKAL DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581 301

¶18

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. KAIKINI ROAD, KARWAR DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581 301

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. S. S. KOLIWAD FOR SRI. B. C. SEETHARAM, ADVOCATE FOR R2) (NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 11.02.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.73/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT KARWAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMNT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS MFA IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 11.02.2010 passed in MVC No.73/2009 on the file of the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Karwar, partly allowing the claim petition

¶25

¶26

for compensation and seeking enhancement of

¶27

compensation.

¶28

The parties will be referred with reference to the status in the Claims Tribunal.

¶29

With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, this matter was heard on merits. The materials placed before this Court is sufficient to dispose of this case at this stage.

¶30

The case of the claimants in the Claims Tribunal is as under:-

¶31

That on 06.11.2008, Smt. Durgamma Mallanaik was walking on N.H.17 on the left side of BhatkalHonavar road. When she reached opposite to JMFC Court, a Hero Honda Passion plus motor cycle bearing No.KA-47/H-892 being driven by its rider with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit against her. Consequently, she died. The deceased was a

¶32

¶33

coolie. She was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month.

¶34

In the Claims Tribunal, the respondent No.1 was placed ex-parte. The respondent No.2 – United India Insurance Company has filed the objection statement.

¶35

The Claims Tribunal relying on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also the police papers namely, FIR, chargesheet, came to a conclusion that the rider of the Hero Honda bearing No.KA-47/H-892 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. This finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in respect of rash and negligent driving is based on the evidence and it is sound and proper.

¶36

The Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and deducted 1/3^rd towards her personal living expenses and applied the multiplier ‘9’. Since she was 60 years old, the

¶37

¶38

Claims Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- under the head of loss of dependency, Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- under the head of funeral expenses. In all, the Claims Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,18,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.

¶39

Feeling aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellants submits as under:

¶41

The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is very meager. Durgamma Mallanaik was having income of more than Rs.3,000/-. The age of the deceased was 60 years. The proper multiplier applied is ‘9’. The compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency is on the lower side.

¶42

¶43

Learned counsel for the respondents submits as under:-

¶44

The claimants are not the dependents. Therefore, no compensation should be awarded. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reasonable.

¶45

In the instant case, the deceased was a coolie. The date of accident is on 06.11.2008. In my view, the income assessed by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, the income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.3,500/- per month. 50% of the income deducted towards her personal expenses. So the claimants are entitled for the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is Rs.1,89,000/- (1,750/- x 12 x 9). Added to this, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the head of conventional sum.

¶46

The enhanced compensation will bear interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.

¶47

¶48

In view of the above discussion, I pass the

¶49

following:-

¶50

O R D E R

¶51

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part.

¶52

The compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,18,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal to Rs.2,19,000/-.

¶53

The enhanced compensation amount will bear interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment.

¶54

The compensation amount shall be divided amongst the claimant Nos.1 and 2 in MVC No.73/2009.

¶55

Rest of the judgment and award is accepted.

¶56

SD/-

¶57

JUDGE

¶58

Manjunath Malla Naik v. Devendra S/O Honnappa Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath Malla Naik v. Devendra S/O Honnappa Naik

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

Smt. Jaibunnisa Vs Sri. Asif Mehboob Kave

Smt.Sujata K.Kulkarni Vs Smt.Vishalakshi W/O Ramchandra Hegade

Yallappa S/O Nagappa Badiger, Vs Sri. Mallappa S/O Rudrappa Kalled

Basheer Ahammad S/O Hajarathalisab Yallapur Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri. Mahadev Basappa Hanchinmani Vs Sri. Abbasali Maktumhussain Mujawar

Ramachandra S/O.Subhas Kahar, Vs P P Azeez S/O.P Abdulrahim