Partly allowed

Smt Malligamma v. Sri Manjunath

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2021MFA/929/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal filed against the Additional Court of Small Causes' judgment in a motor accident case. The Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 2,99,000 to Rs. 5,74,000 by correcting the assessment of notional income and applying the multiplier for loss of dependency and awarding a lump sum for loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 5,74,000 carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition.

Smt Malligamma Vs Sri Manjunath — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶8

MFA NO.929 OF 2019 (MV)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

SMT. MALLIGAMMA W/O LATE SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶11

SMT. HEMAVATHI D. S. D/O LATE SOMANNA W/O GURUSWAMY

¶12

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT BIDARAHALLI HUNDI VILLAGE KANDALIKE HOBLI H.D.KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 121

¶13

SMT. CHANDRAKALA D. S. D/O LATE SOMANNA W/O RAJESH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶14

SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR D.S. S/O LATE SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶15

THE APPELLANTS NO.1, 3 AND 4 ARE R/AT NO.159/6-A, 4^TH CROSS KANDAYA COLONY, J. P. NAGARA MYSURU – 570 008 ... APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA D. C., ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

AND :

¶19

SRI. MANJUNATH S/O GURUMALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.11, DODDAKARURU THALUR POST, JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 570 008 (DRIVER OF LORRY NO.KA-09-B-8851)

¶20

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BY ITS MANAGER, NO.1003-E-8 RICO INDUSTRIAL AREA SITA PURA-JAIPUR RAJASTHAN STATE – 302 022 ALSO BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.5/4, 3^RD FLOOR S. V. ARCADE, BILEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANNERGHATTA ROAD IIMB POST, BENGALURU – 560 076 (INSURER OF LORRY NO.KA-09-B-8851)

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. H.N. KESHAWA PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR R2; R1 SERVED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGASINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1111/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 03.11.2018 passed by the Judge, Additional Small Causes & Senior Civil Judge, at Mysuru, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.1111/2016, the petitioners therein have preferred this appeal.

¶28

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that on 07.08.2015 at about 6.00 a.m. the deceased Somanna who is the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 was proceeding on his TVS Wego Vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-09-HP4820 on Udboor-Hullahalli road. At that time, the driver of the Ashok Leyland Dost LE-BS3 bearing Reg.No.KA-09-B-8851 being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the vehicle of the deceased which resulted in him sustaining multiple injuries and succumbed to the same. Hence, the petitioners preferred MVC No.1111/2016 and claimed compensation of Rs.21,00,000/-.

¶30

After service of notice, the respondents have appeared through their respective counsel and filed their statement of

¶31

¶32

objections before the Tribunal denying liability and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶33

The petitioners examined two witnesses as PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. Respondents have not examined any witnesses nor got marked any documents.

¶34

Based on the pleadings and evidence let in, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,99,000/- as compensation to the petitioners. Though it is claimed that the deceased was retired Head Constable and also an Agriculturist, no documents were produced and hence the Tribunal has assessed his monthly income notionally at Rs.4,500/- per month. We find the same to be on the lower side. The accident is of the year 2015 and the notional income to be adopted for the said year as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority with consultation of the Insurance companies is Rs.9,000/- per month. The deceased at the time of the death was aged about 62 years. Petitioner No.1 being his wife alone can be considered to be dependant whereas, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 being his daughters are married and petitioner No.4 being his son is earning and living independently and cannot be termed as dependants. Given his age, no future prospects can be awarded

¶35

¶36

and 1/3^rd of his income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Further, a multiplier of ‘7’ is adopted to calculate loss of dependency. Thus, petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,04,000/- under the head loss of dependency (9,000 x 12 x 7 x 2/3).

¶37

Further, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Somwati [(2020)9 SCC 644] , petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus, in all a sum of Rs.5,74,000/- is awarded as against Rs.2,99,000/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶38

Hence, the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i] Appeal is allowed in part.

¶41

ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.5,74,000/as against Rs.2,99,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

vi] Draw modified award accordingly.

¶48

Sd/- JUDGE

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

MH/-

Smt Malligamma v. Sri Manjunath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Malligamma v. Sri Manjunath

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

State of Karnataka Vs Sri.S.S. Bagalkoti

Mohammed Sulthan Sheriff @ Shabaz Vs M/S Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Housing & Urban Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs D.K. Ramesh

Sri. Murthy v Vs M/S. Ama Logistics

Smt. Nagarathnamma Vs Kariyappa

Smt M R Vijayakumari Vs Bharath Pawar R