Partly allowed

Smt Gowramma v. Sadiq Basha

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2021MFA/4866/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Bengaluru allowed an Fiela under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court recalculated mesne damages after accepting a higher gross salary for the deceased, enhancing compensation from approximately Rs.13 lakh to Rs.20 lakh with interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified granting compensation of Rs.20,02,168/- instead of Rs.13,38,070/- with 6% interest; respondents directed to deposit.

Smt Gowramma Vs Sadiq Basha — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

M.F.A.NO.4866/2014 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. GOWRAMMA, WIFE OF LATE SHRI SURESH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE.

¶9

SMT. RAJAMMA, WIFE OF LATE SHRI NEELAKANTA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶10

BOTH ARE R/O BANUR VILLAGE, SAKREPTNA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101. … APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI G.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SADIQ BASHA, S/O AZEEZ BASHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O NO.48, 1^ST ,CROSS, TANK MOHALLA, SHIVAMOGGA-577201. DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING REGN.NO.KA-11/6800 DL NO.KA.1420012001856.

¶14

SYED SHAFFI, S/O SYED JAFFER, R/O 3^RD CROSS, SIDDESHWARANAGAR, CHIKKAL, SHIVAMOGGA-577201. OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGN NO.KA-11/6800.

¶15

¶16

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1^ST FLOOR, MAGANUR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, B.D. ROAD, CHITRADURGA – 577501. POLICY NO.140671233400561.

¶17

DEVAPPA, S/O RANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O GAVNAHALLI VILLAGE, RAMPURA POST, CHIKMAGALUR-577101. DRIVER OF AUTORICKSHAW BEARING REGN. NO.KA-18/B.483.

¶18

D. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O DEVARAJA, R/O GAVANAHALLI, RAMPURA POST, CHICKMAGALUR – 577101, OWNER OF AUTORICKSHAW BEARING REGN NO.KA-18/B.483.

¶19

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1^ST FLOOR, S.S. COMPLEX, B H ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA – 577201, POLICY NO.605200/31/12/6300001645 VALID UPTO 19.4.2013. ... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI H.C. BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI M.S. SRIRAM, ADVOCATE FOR R-6; R-2 AND R-5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 25.02.2015 NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH; VIDE ORDER DATED 08.06.2021 NOTICE TO R-4 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC.NO.544/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, CHIKMAGALUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 05.04.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.644/2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, MACT, Chikmagalur (‘the Tribunal’ for short) questioning the quantum of compensation.

¶26

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid the confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶27

The grounds urged in the appeal is that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the net salary of the deceased as Rs.12,116/- as mentioned in Ex.P.9 and the same is erroneous and the salary of the deceased was Rs.13,470/- and hence it requires recalculation under the head loss of dependency.

¶28

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 6 also

¶29

does not dispute that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.13,470/-.

¶30

¶31

Taking the income of the deceased as Rs.13,470/-

¶32

per month, professional tax of Rs.200/- has to be deducted from Rs.13,470/-. After deducting the same, it comes to Rs.13,270/and if it is multiplied by ‘12’ it comes to Rs.1,59,240/- and the

¶33

same is within the tax limit and hence the same has to be recalculated under the head loss of dependency.

¶34

Now the ‘loss of dependency’ is calculated as under:

¶35

Monthly income	–	Rs.13,270/-
Add: 30% towards
Future prospects	-	Rs.3,981/-
		--------------
	-	Rs.17,251/-
Less: 1/3^rdtowards
Personal expenses	-	Rs.5,750/-
		--------------
	-	Rs.11,501/-
		------------------
Loss of dependency	=	Rs.19,32,168/-
(Rs.11,501/- x 12 x 14)		------------------

¶36

The claimants are entitled for an amount of

¶37

Rs.70,000/- under the head other conventional head in view of

¶38

the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL

¶39

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND

¶40

OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 .

¶41

¶42

In all, the claimants are entitled for an amount of

¶43

Rs.20,02,168/- as against Rs.13,38,070/-.

¶44

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶45

following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶48

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 05.04.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.544/2012 is modified granting compensation of Rs.20,02,168/- as against Rs.13,38,070/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶49

(iii) The respondent Nos.3 and 6 are liable to pay 50% of the amount each as directed by the Tribunal.

¶50

(iv) The respondent Nos.3 and 6 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Smt Gowramma v. Sadiq Basha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gowramma v. Sadiq Basha

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

Banappa K G Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Kumar Vs Syed Navaj Ulla

Sri Chennaiah S/O Sri Rangappa Vs Sri Hidayathulla

The Divisional Manager Vs Sri M S Devu

M.S. Devu Vs Sri T.M. Krishnamurthy

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri Veerabhadraiah