Partly allowed

Syed Amjad v. Shri Shanmuga Modern Mills Private Limited

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2021MFA/3470/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Accident case dismissed appeal challenging compensation for deceased's parents. Court enhanced compensation from Rs.2.49 lakhs to Rs.10.12 lakhs by considering deceased as B.Com. student with future prospects, relying on National Insurance Co Ltd v. Pranay Sethi judgment.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs 10,12,800/- with 6% per annum interest from petition date; insurer directed to deposit within six weeks.

Syed Amjad Vs Shri Shanmuga Modern Mills Private… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.3470/2012 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SYED AMJAD S/O SAHID HUSSAIN AGED 52 YEARS

¶9

2 . SMT. DILSHAN W/O SYED AMJAD AGED 47 YEARS

¶10

RESIDING AT CHIKKA HULLURU DASARAGHALLI BENGALURU

¶11

… APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI MUNIYAPPA D. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . SHRI SHANMUGA MODERN MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED DASHUHALLI, KGF ROAD BANGERPET TOWN KOLAR-563 114.

¶15

2 . ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SVR COMPLEX, HOSUR ROAD MADIWALA, BENGALURU.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI JAYAPRAKASH N., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

¶19

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.11.2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.6445/2010 ON THE FILE OF 11^TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Though this appeal is listed for admission today, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶23

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the Judgment and Award dated 15.11.2011 passed in M.V.C.No.6445/2010 on the file of Small Causes, Bengaluru City, (SCCH-12) (‘the Tribunal’ for short), questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in respect of the death of the deceased boy, who is aged about 19 years.

¶24

The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased

¶25

met with an accident on 23.08.2010 at about 3:00 p.m. Hence, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming that he

¶26

¶27

was a student of B.Com., and assisting the family. The Tribunal after considering the material available on record, assessed the ‘loss of dependency’ and awarded the compensation of Rs.2,49,000/- and not added ‘future prospectus’ and taken the income as Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, the present appeal is filed.

¶28

The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the ‘loss of dependency’ to the tune of Rs.2,24,000/- is very meager by taking the income of Rs.3,000/per month. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondent submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not require any interference of this Court.

¶30

Having heard the arguments of the respective

¶31

counsel and on perusal of the grounds urged in the appeal and the materials available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

¶32

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just and reasonable

¶33

¶34

compensation and whether it requires an interference of this Court?

¶35

(ii) What order?

¶36

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):

¶37

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the accident was taken place in the year 2010 and also it is not in dispute that he was a student of B.Com. In support of the same, the claimants have produced SSLC and PUC marks card-Ex.P8 and the copy of the ID card of the deceased-Ex.P10 was also produced to show that he was pursuing his education and Ex.P11-Computer Course Certificate. These are the documents are not been considered by the Tribunal. Hence, it is clear that he was pursuing B.Com., and the marks card also disclose that he was pursuing his education. Apart from that, he is having computer knowledge. Having taken note of the same, it is appropriate to add Rs.1,000/- apart from Rs.5,500/- to his income. Hence, taken the notional income as Rs.6,500/- per month, after adding 40% of ‘future prospects’ it comes to Rs.9,100/-, after deducting 50% it comes to Rs.4,550/- and

¶38

¶39

having taken the relevant multiplier 18, it comes to Rs.9,82,800/- (4550x12x18) towards ‘Loss of dependency’.

¶40

In view of the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, the parents-claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the ‘conventional heads’ since he is a bachelor.

¶41

In the circumstances, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.10,12,800/- as against Rs.2,49,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶42

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶43

following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶46

(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 15.11.2011 passed in M.V.C.No.6445/2010 on the file of Small Causes, Bengaluru City, (SCCH-12) is

¶47

¶48

modified granting compensation of Rs.10,12,800/- as against Rs.2,49,000/awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶49

(iii) The respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within six weeks from today.

¶50

(iv) The Registry is directed to send the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

cp*

Syed Amjad v. Shri Shanmuga Modern Mills Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Amjad v. Shri Shanmuga Modern Mills Private Limited

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

Mr Sanjeeva Gowda Vs B N Adinarayana Guptha

Manjunatha Vs Nagaraja Kayakada

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Gowramma

Venugopal Vs M/S Transystem Logistics

Jayalakshmi Vs M/S Transystem Logistics

Smt Premalatha Vs M/S Vivek Transport Co. Ltd.