Partly allowed

Davalsab S/O Imamsab Hebasur v. Mehaboobsab S/O Abdulkareem Khaji

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2017MFA/21545/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Court enhanced the compensation awarded for a motor accident. The enhancement was calculated on a higher notional monthly income of Rs.4,250/- instead of the Tribunal's adopted Rs.3,000/-, covering loss of earnings, amenities, attendant charges, and other losses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,62,860/- carrying interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

Davalsab S/O Imamsab Hebasur Vs Mehaboobsab S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.21545/2012 (MV)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Davalsab son of Imamsab Hebasur, Age : 51 Years, Occupation: now nil, Resident of Noorani Galli, Saundatti, Taluk:Saundatti, District:Belgaum. … Appellant

¶9

(By Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, Advocate)

¶10

And:

¶11

Mehaboobsab son of Abdulkareem Khaji, Age: Major, Occupation: Business, Resident of Baraimam Galli Baljimath, Near Vidyaranya High School, Dharwad, District: Dharwad.

¶12

United India Insurance Company Limited, Issuing Office DO V No.25, Shankarnarayan Building, MG Road Bangalore, Through the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Belgaum. … Respondents

¶13

(By Shri Laxman B.Mannoddar, Advocate for R-2, R-1 served)

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

This appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 23.12.2010 passed in M.V.C.No.1075/2009 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court and Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saundatti, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶16

This appeal coming on for admission, this day, the court delivered the following:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶19

The appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The appellant was aged about 29 years, though incorrectly shown as 51 in the causetitle, and it transpires that he had suffered injuries as a result of a motor accident and had laid a claim for compensation. The Tribunal, in calculating the amount of compensation has taken the notional income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month, wherein the accident was of the year 2008 and the notional income adopted during the relevant period by the Courts and Tribunals was at least at Rs.4,250/- per month which ought to be applied. In which event, the loss of earnings in relation to the disability that the appellant was suffering from,

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

would stand enhanced to Rs.69,360/- instead of Rs.46,080/- and the loss of amenities which is taken at Rs.15,000/- should be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- and the attendant charges and miscellaneous expenses which the appellant had incurred during the time when he was under treatment is awarded at Rs.5,000/which should be enhanced to Rs.10,000/- and the loss of income during the laid up period is shown as Rs.5,000/-. This apparently was on the basis that the income was only Rs.3,000/- per month. If, it is taken as Rs.4,250/-, loss of income would correspondingly increase and would be Rs.8,500/- instead of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, the appellant shall be entitled to total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,62,860/- instead of Rs.1,21,080/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶22

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.

¶23

Sd/JUDGE

¶24

Jm/-

Davalsab S/O Imamsab Hebasur v. Mehaboobsab S/O Abdulkareem Khaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Davalsab S/O Imamsab Hebasur v. Mehaboobsab S/O Abdulkareem Khaji

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

Bhimappa Ramappa Dasa Age 40 Years, Vs Govind Bandhu Jadhav Age Major, Occ Not Known

Sri. Venkatesh S/O Venkanagouda Rayanagoudar Vs Sri. Gadigeppa S/O Bhimappa Kanannavar

Rasoolbi S/O Fakirsab Yendigeri, Vs the Divisional Manager

Bharama Ningappa Kundannavar, Vs Dilip Mohan Shewale

Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs Sangappa S/O. Vasudev Surkod

Smt. Ratna W/O Sangappa Hoogar Vs Mallkarjun S/O Mahadevappa Ayatti