Partly allowed

Smt.Manjula v. Sri.H.P.Dayanand

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2021MFA/3635/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the motor accident fatal accident appeal in part. It modified the Tribunal's award of compensation, enhancing it from Rs. 9.41 lakhs to Rs. 13.93 lakhs based on a recalculated notional monthly income of the deceased and the application of the multiplier principle.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part; the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 13,93,000/-; the insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within six weeks.

Smt.Manjula Vs Sri.H.P.Dayanand — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

M.F.A.NO.3635/2015 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SMT.MANJULA W/O LATE PRABHU SWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶9

2 . KUMARI DEEPKA D/O LATE PRABHU SWAMY AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS

¶10

3 . MASTER SRINIVASA S/O LATE PRABHU SWAMY AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,

¶11

(SINCE APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS DULY REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER THE 1^ST APPELLANT)

¶12

ALL ARE R/AT NO.38, GAYATHRINAGAR CHIKKALAKKIPALYA, TIPTUR - 572201.

¶13

… APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

1 . SRI.H.P.DAYANAND S/O PANDURANGAYYA AGED MAJOR,

¶17

¶18

NO.91, HALEPALYA, TIPTUR, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572201.

¶19

2 . THE REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, 2^ND FLOOR SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

3 . SMT. RUKMINAMMA W/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, NO.179, CHIKKALAKKIPALYA, HALEPALYA TIPTUR, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572201

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI HARISH O.K., ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1-SERVED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.01.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.7347/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent

¶27

of learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal is taken up for

¶28

final disposal.

¶29

¶30

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.7347/2012 dated 05.01.2015 on the file of the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-5) at Bengaluru questioning the quantum of compensation.

¶31

The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased Prabhu Swamy met with an accident on 23.10.2012 at about 6.45 p.m. and due to the accident, he has sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

¶32

The claimants, in order to substantiate their claim, got examined the first claimant as P.W.1 and an eye witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P13. On the other hand, the respondent-Insurance Company examined a witness as R.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.R1 to R4.

¶33

The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, allowed the claim petition in part granting compensation of Rs.9,41,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.

¶34

¶35

The claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased Prabhu Swamy, who succumbed to the injuries in the road traffic accident in the appeal would contend that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation. He would further contend that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased as 38 years and committed an error in taking the age of the deceased as 43 years. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company would submit that in the appeal memo itself, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 38 years. The Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. It is the accident of the year 2012 and just and reasonable compensation has been awarded on all the heads. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court.

¶37

¶38

Having heard the respective counsel and also on

¶39

perusal of the records, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are:

¶40

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation and it requires interference of this Court?

¶41

(ii) What order?

¶42

Point No.(i)

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel for the claimants

¶44

and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company and also on perusal of the material on record, the claimants are none other than the wife and two children and mother-in-law has also been arrayed as respondent No.3 and the same has been considered by the Tribunal. While awarding compensation on the head of loss of dependency, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. In the absence of any documentary proof with regard to income, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income at Rs.7,000/- per month. In view of the age of the deceased being

¶45

¶46

38 years, 40% is to be added towards future prospects which comes to Rs.2,800/- and after adding the same, it comes to Rs.9,800/- per month. Since, the claimants are four in number, 1/4^th is to be deducted from Rs.9,800/- which comes to Rs.2,450/- and after deducting the same, the monthly salary of the deceased comes to Rs.7,350/-.

¶47

Considering the income of the deceased at Rs.7,350/- per month and applying the relevant multiplier 15, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.13,23,000/(7,350x12x15). The claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.70,000/- on the other conventional heads in view of the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case.

¶48

Hence, in all, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.13,93,000/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.9,41,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶49

Point No.(ii)

¶50

In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶51

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶54

(ii) The judgment and award of the Tribunal passed in M.V.C.No.7347/2012 dated 05.01.2015 on the file of the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-5) at Bengaluru is modified granting compensation of Rs.13,93,000/as against Rs.9,41,000/awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum.

¶55

(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation within six weeks from today.

¶56

(iv) The registry is directed to transmit the TCR to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Smt.Manjula v. Sri.H.P.Dayanand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Manjula v. Sri.H.P.Dayanand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ashoka M D Vs D R Krishnamurthy

Kavitha Nayak Vs Prabhakar Kulal

Mr Mohammed Irfan @ Irfan Vs the National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt.Girija Vs the Managing Director

Kumari Ambika Vs the Managing Director

Mr Kaveri Vs Mr Anand Shetty