Partly allowed

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

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2021MFA/5530/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Accident Compensation Appeal partly, modifying the award by increasing compensation to Rs.10,78,000/- with interest. The Court corrected the multiplier to 16 for a 33-year-old deceased, adjusted dependent shares to 1/4th, and added future prospects. It directed the insurance company to deposit the amount within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.6,30,120/- to Rs.10,78,00/- with interest at 6% per annum; judgment and award modified; deposit directed within eight weeks.

Smt Premalatha Vs M/S Vivek Transport Co. Ltd. — 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.5530/2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SMT. PREMALATHA W/O LATE PRASHANTH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶9

2 . MASTER SAGAR S/O LATE PRASHANTH AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS

¶10

3 . SHRISTI S/O LATE PRASHANTH AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS

¶11

APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN-MOTHER APPEALLANT NO.1

¶12

4 . K. DAMODHAR S/O LATE PAKIRA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDING AT MADHUVANA, DASAKODI HOUSE BALTHILA VILLAGE BANTWALA TALUK-574 211.

¶14

… APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI K. RANJAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

AND:

¶18

1 . M/S. VIVEK TRANSPORT CO. LTD., H.NO.99, SECTOR 17, AD, GUREGAVE HARIYANA-122001

¶19

2 . ICICI LAMBARDO MOTOR INSURANCE ZENITH HOUSE, KESHAV RAO KADE ROAD MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI-400034

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 04.07.2016 R1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.160/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-6, MANGALORE, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.160/2010 dated 12.10.2012 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-IV, Mangalore, D.K. challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶29

The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased met with an accident on 29.10.2009 and the claimants are the wife, minor children and father of the deceased, who is aged about 74 years. The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,30,120/- with interest at 6% per annum. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the claimants questioning the quantum of compensation contending the same is very meager and further contend that the future prospects has not been considered.

¶30

The counsel appearing for the claimants would

¶31

vehemently contend that the compensation awarded on the other heads is also very meager and the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the multiplier of 15 instead of 16 since, the deceased is aged about 33 years. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶32

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

¶34

respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the accident is of the year 2009 and the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. However, he fairly concedes that future prospects has not been added and this Court can reconsider the same.

¶35

Having heard the arguments of respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration of before Court are:

¶36

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding just and reasonable compensation and it requires interference of this Court?

¶37

(ii) What order?

¶38

Point No.(i)

¶39

6. Having perused the material available on record, it is

¶40

not in dispute that the claimants are wife, children and father of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 33 years. On perusal of the judgment and award of the Tribunal, it is not in dispute that future prospects has not been added, as contended by the learned counsel for the

¶41

¶42

claimants. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month considering the fact that this accident has taken place in the year 2009 and if 40% is added towards future prospects, it comes to Rs.2,000/- (5,000x40/100). Hence, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,000/-. The claimants are wife, minor children and father of the deceased, who is aged about 74 years.

¶43

The counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company would submit that father of the deceased is not dependent and the said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that his father was aged about 74 years at the time of the accident and not an earning member of the family.

¶44

Having taken note of the fact that there was four dependants, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4^th , instead of 1/3^rd and the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3^rd and if 1/4^th is deducted from Rs.7,000/-, it comes to Rs.1,750/- and if Rs.1,750/- is deducted out of Rs.7,000/-, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,250/- (7,0001,750).

¶45

¶46

It is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the multiplier as 15, instead of 16. Taking the income of the deceased as Rs.5,250/per month, it works out to Rs.10,08,000/- (5,250x12x16). The claimants are also entitled for Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads in view of the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case. Hence, in all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,78,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.

¶47

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

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶50

(ii) The judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.160/2010 dated 12.10.2012 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-IV, Mangalore, D.K. is modified granting compensation of Rs.10,78,000/- as against Rs.6,30,120/- awarded by the Tribunal at 6% per annum.

¶51

¶52

(iii) The respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today.

¶53

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

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Syed Amjad Vs Shri Shanmuga Modern Mills Private Limited