Partly allowed

Abdul Razak @ Razak v. Velerian Lewis

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2015MFA/958/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to the heirs of a deceased minor in a motor accident. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 4,75,000 based on notional income and a multiplier of 15, granting an additional Rs. 3,30,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Allowed in part; enhanced compensation to Rs. 4,75,000; entitlement to an additional Rs. 3,30,000 plus interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition.

Abdul Razak @ Razak Vs Velerian Lewis — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

�� MFA No��

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2015 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.958 OF 2014

¶5

BETWEEN

¶6

ABDUL RAZAK @ RAZAK S/O LATE MOHAMMED HUSSAIN AGED 43 YEARS

¶7

MRS NEBISA W/O ABDUL RAZAK @ RAZAKIS AGED 42 YEARS

¶8

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SARKALA SAGU HOUSE BAREBETTU POST KOLNAD VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FATHIMA MANZIL ULLAL MUKHACERI MANGALORE.

¶9

... APPELLANTS

¶10

(BY SMT: SANDHYA RAO P, ADV FOR SRI: GURUPRASAD B R, ADV)

MFA No��

��

AND:

VELERIAN LEWIS S/O LATE MARSHEL LEWIS ADULT R/AT KUKKAJE HOUSE MANCHI VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK – 574 211.

¶15

M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD BRANCH: MAXIMUS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX 4^TH FLOOR,LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD HAMPANKATTA MANGALORE – 575 001.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI: H C BETSUR, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.426/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MACT, D.K., MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

MFA No��

��

J U D G M E N T

The appellants dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded for the death of their son, have filed this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶24

The occurrence of accident, rash and

¶25

negligent driving and involvement of vehicle is not in dispute. The appeal confines only to quantum of compensation. The deceased was minor aged 16 years at the time of death. The Tribunal has granted the sum of Rs.1,45,000/- on all heads.

¶26

Heard the learned Counsel for both

¶27

the parties.

¶28

Learned Counsel for the appellants

¶29

submit that the compensation awarded is meager and notional income is not granted by the Tribunal and therefore, he seeks enhancement.

¶30

On the other hand, learned Counsel

¶31

for the insurer supporting the judgment and

¶32

MFA No��

¶33

��

¶34

award submits that the Tribunal has considered all these grounds and granted compensation and appeal cannot be maintained.

¶35

deceased, the son of appellant was 16 years age at the time of accident. It is the principle that notional income has to be applied in case a minor’s death. The apex court in a judgment has considered the notional income of a minor at Rs.30,000/- and after adopting multiplier has granted compensation. In addition, also granted compensation towards loss of love and affection and other expenses. The mother of the deceased

¶36

who is the youngest is 37 years at the time of accident, therefore, the multiplier applicable is ‘15’. Considering the notional income at Rs.30,000/- and the multiplier ‘15’, the amount

¶37

of compensation payable would be Rs.4,50,000/-. In respect of other heads, it is just and proper to grant Rs.25,000/-. Thereby the appellant is

¶38

MFA No��

¶39

��

¶40

entitled to Rs.4,75,000/- and deducting the sum of Rs.1,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, they are entitled to Rs.3,30,000/-.

¶41

In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to Rs.3,30,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the payment in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

*bgn/-

Abdul Razak @ Razak v. Velerian Lewis

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Razak @ Razak v. Velerian Lewis

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 Mohan Rao Vs a Saravanan

M/S Icici Lombard Gic Ltd. Vs Ramakrishnaiah

Sushma Vs Honnaiah

Balachandra G Vs the Managing Director

M Lathamma Vs M/S Tata Aig General Ins Co. Ltd.

Shahjahan @ Shahabuddin Vs S Samson Devaprasad