Partly allowed

Sri Mahadevu C M v. the Manager

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2021MFA/6177/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TheHigh Court allowed the appeal partly, enhancing compensation for death in a motor vehicle accident from Rs.8,65,000 to Rs.17,96,500 based on reassessed notional income and application of multiplier and heads of loss per Supreme Court rulings, denying interest for the appeal period.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.17,96,500; interest at 6% p.a. from date of claim petition till realization; interest for appeal delay denied.

Sri Mahadevu C M Vs the Manager — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

M.F.A.No.6177/2018 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

1 . SRI MAHADEVU C.M., S/O LATE MAYIGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶10

2 . SHASHI KUMAR C.M., S/O MAHADEVU C.M., AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶11

3 . LOKESH C.M., S/O MAHADEVU C.M., AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶12

4 . HEMALATHA D/O MAHADEVU C.M., AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT CHIKKAGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. ...APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI K.N.SHASHIDHAR, ADV.)

¶15

AND :

¶16

1 . THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GEN. INS. CO. LTD., 2^ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

OPP. INFANTRY HALL, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶19

2 . SRI KRISHNEGOWDA S/O VENKATAGOWDA K., MAJOR, R/AT NO.60, KAGEPURA VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. …RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED.)

¶21

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.1061/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MALAVALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

This appeal is directed against the judgment and

¶25

award dated 31.1.2017 passed in MVC No.1061/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Malavalli [Tribunal for short].

¶26

The claimants being the husband and children of the deceased Suvarna instituted the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of Smt.Suvarna in a road traffic accident.

¶27

- 3 -

¶28

It was averred in the claim petition that on 18.9.2014 when the deceased Smt.Suvarna along with her husband was travelling in the Bajaj Discover Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-11-EA-6868 as a pillion rider, near the school at Mooganakopplu on Malavalli-Mysore road, an Eicher Goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-118668 (offending vehicle) being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle and both of them fell down along with the motor cycle. Due to the said impact, both the rider and pillion fell down along with the motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries. The pillion rider Smt.Suvarna died at the spot.

¶29

It was contended that the deceased was aged about 38 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month doing milk vending business and tailoring work. The deceased used to spend her entire earnings for the maintenance of her family and the claimants were

¶30

¶31

entirely depending on the deceased. The untimely death of the deceased has caused loss of dependency, loss of love and affection etc., On these set of facts, the claimants sought for compensation.

¶32

In response to service of summons, the respondents appeared through their respective counsel. Though 2^nd respondent filed the written statement, no written statement was filed by the 1^st respondent.

¶33

The respondent No.2-insurer denying the petition averments contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive class/type of vehicle at the time of accident. The compensation claimed is exorbitant, excessive and baseless. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶34

On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and answered as per the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment allowing the petition in part

¶35

¶36

awarding total compensation of Rs.8,65,000/- with

¶37

interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶38

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of

¶39

compensation, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellants

¶41

submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a right perspective. The monthly income of the deceased determined by the Tribunal notionally at Rs.6,000/- is on the lower side. No compensation towards future prospects has been awarded. The compensation awarded under the conventional heads is meager. It was argued that the compensation awarded being inadequate, the same requires to be enhanced substantially.

¶42

Learned counsel for the insurer submitted

¶43

that on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence,

¶44

¶45

the Tribunal has awarded just compensation which

¶46

requires to be confirmed by dismissing the appeal.

¶47

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the original records.

¶48

It is borne out from the records that the

¶49

deceased was aged about 40 years as per Ex.P4 post mortem report.

¶50

circumstances of the case, referring to the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income of the deceased can be re-assessed since no cogent evidence is available on record to establish the factum of income earned by the deceased at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the

¶51

monthly income of the deceased is determined at Rs.8,500/- notionally. Adding 40% of the income towards future prospects, the total income would be

¶52

- 7 -

¶53

Rs.11,900/-. Applying the multiplier of 15, deducting ¼ of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, loss of dependency works out to Rs.16,06,500/- (Rs.11900 x 12 x 15 x 3/4).

¶54

In terms of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in ((2017)16 SCC 680) and New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Somawati and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644 , the claimants are entitled to compensation under the conventional heads at Rs.1,90,000/-.

¶55

Hence, the total compensation awarded by

¶56

the Tribunal is re-assessed as under:

¶57

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount[in Rs.]
1.	Loss ofdependency	16,06,500
2.	Towards spousalConsortium	40,000
3.	Towards parental consortium (Rs.40000 to eachchild)	1,20,000
3.	Loss of Estate	15,000
4.	Funeralexpenses	15,000
	Total	17,96,500

¶58

¶59

Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.17,96,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation.

¶60

Hence, the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i] Appeal is allowed in part.

¶63

ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.17,96,500/- as against Rs.8,65,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. However, the interest for the delayed period of 450 days in filing the appeal is denied as per the order dated 07.01.2021.

¶64

iii] The insurance company shall deposit the reassessed total compensation determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from

¶65

¶66

the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶67

iv] The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact.

¶68

v] The modified compensation shall be disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

¶69

vi] Draw modified award accordingly.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

Dvr:

Sri Mahadevu C M v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahadevu C M v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nishanth N R Vs Jagadish B R

Shri. C. N. Kumar Vs the Branch Manager

Rajashekhar J.K Vs Dheeraj Kumar

Sri B Sharanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Iliyas. M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Chandrashekar Vs the Oriental General Insurance Co. Ltd.