Partly allowed

Sulaiman, v. Sachidananda Shetty

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2014MFA/888/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants, legal representatives of deceased victims in a road traffic accident, sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The High Court corrected the loss of dependency calculation for two unmarried dependent daughters, enhancing the total awards, and modified the lower court's judgment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment is modified; insurer to deposit enhanced compensation without three months' notice.

Sulaiman, Vs Sachidananda Shetty — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^st DAY OF March 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH

¶6

M.F.A.No.886 /2011 (MV)

¶7

C/w. M.F.A.No.888/2011 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

Sulaiman S/o Late Hassainar, aged 42 years,

¶10

Abdul Rahiman,

¶11

S/o Late Hassainar, aged 39 years,

¶12

Jainuddin,

¶13

S/o Late Hassainar, aged 34 years,

¶14

Ayub,

¶15

S/o Late Hassainar, aged 29 years,

¶16

Khairunnisa,

¶17

D/o Late Hassainar, aged 25 years,

¶18

Aashiya,

¶19

D/o Late Hassainar, aged 23 years,

¶20

All are r/at Shetrakatte, Kanchanoor village, Kundapura Taluk. .. Appellants (common in both Appeals)

¶21

( By Sri Mahesh Shetty, Advocate )

¶22

¶23

AND :

¶24

Sachidananda Shetty, S/o Late Krishnappa Shetty, Aged 49 years, R/at Hottebailu Mane, Voderhobli village, Kundapura Taluk.

¶25

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch No.7, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, II Floor, Rosy Towers, Nungabakkam, Chennai. Regional Office, the Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., No.45/45, Leo shopping Complex, Residency Cross Road, M.G.Road, Bangalore. .. Respondents (common in both Appeals)

¶26

( By Sri R.Rajagopalan, Advocate for R-2 )

¶27

These MFAs are filed under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act against the judgment and award dated 26.10.2010 passed in MVC.No.411/2006 (in MFA.No.886/2011) and MVC.No.413/2006 (in MFA.No.888/2011) on the file of Senior Civil Judge & Member, Addl.MACT, Kundapura, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶28

These Appeals coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following :

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

These appeals arise out of the common judgment and

¶31

award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & Addl.MACT,

¶32

¶33

Kundapura, in MVC.Nos.411 & 413/2006, dated 26^th October 2010.

¶34

The claimants/appellants are the legal representatives of deceased M.Hassainar and Alimbai who died in the road traffic accident that occurred on 28.12.2005. It is the case of the claimants that on 28.12.2005 when Hassainar and Alimbai were travelling along with others in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-20-A-5989, near Halady bridge, Anagalli village, Kundapura taluk, the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-20-2395 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the autorickshaw due to which Hassainar and Smt.Alimbai sustained grievous injuries. Alimbai died on the spot and Hassainar died on the way to the hospital. As such, claimants being the children of Hassainar and Alimbai filed claim petitions before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

¶35

On the matter being contested by the respondentinsurer, the Tribunal raising as many as six issues, after enquiry,

¶36

¶37

holding that the accident was due to negligence of the driver of the bus in question, awarded total compensation of Rs.85,000/in MVC.No.411/2006 and Rs.1,02,000/- in MVC.No.413/2006 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being not satisfied, the claimants/appellants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel representing the parties.

¶39

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that all the claimants were depending on the income of the deceased and claimants/appellants 5 and 6 – Khairunnisa and Aashiya were fully depending on the deceased as they are unmarried and accordingly, sought enhancement of compensation.

¶40

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurance company submits that the Tribunal has awarded compensation under all heads, except under the head `loss of estate' and accordingly, sought dismissal of these appeals.

¶41

¶42

It appears, claimants 5 and 6 in both the cases are fully dependent on the deceased as they are unmarried. For the purpose of calculating loss of dependency, the age of deceased has to be taken into consideration. As per the post mortem report, the age of Hassainar is around 62-64 years. He was running a General Store and also doing agriculture at the time of accident. The accident is of the year 2005. Taking the income of Hassainar at Rs.3,000/-, deducting one-third towards personal expenses, applying the multiplier `7' having regard to the age of the deceased at the time of accident, the claimants/appellants are entitled to Rs.1,68,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.40,000/- under conventional heads. Thus, in all the claimants/appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,08,000/- instead of Rs.85,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶43

The deceased Alimbai was working as a coolie at the time of accident. As per the post mortem report, the age of Alimbai is

¶44

¶45

around 60 years. Taking the income of Hassainar at Rs.3,000/-, deducting one-third towards personal expenses, applying the multiplier `9' having regard to the age of the deceased at the time of accident, the claimants/appellants are entitled to Rs.2,16,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.40,000/- under conventional heads. Thus, in all the claimants/appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,56,000/- instead of Rs.1,02,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶46

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.Nos.411 & 413/2006 is modified. The insurer to deposit the amount without three months.

¶47

Appeals are allowed in part.

¶48

bk/

Sulaiman, v. Sachidananda Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulaiman, v. Sachidananda Shetty

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

Mrs Geetha Mohan Vs Mr R Ramakrishna

Kar Road Transport Corpn Vs Nagaraj K

Smt Lalithamma Vs the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd,.

Sri Chikkanna Vs M/S Balaji Painters & Decorators

Sulaiman, Vs Sachidananda Shetty

Sri Manohar S Vs Sri Abdul Khader Sait