Partly allowed

Bashirabanu W/O. Moulali Suranagi v. Sayedreshamanasab S/O. Husensab Bammigatti

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2022MFA/100529/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the High Court enhanced compensation payable to the family of the deceased. The court found an error in the Tribunal's assessment of notional income and allowed 40% future prospects with a 1/4th deduction for personal expenses, granting total compensation of Rs. 18,39,500.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 10,16,000/- to Rs. 18,39,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition, payable within six weeks.

Bashirabanu W/O. Moulali Suranagi Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 100529 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100529 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BASHIRABANU W/O. MOULALI SURANAGI AGE:29 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶8

KHVAJAMAINU S/O. MOULALI SURANAGI AGE:11 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,

¶9

MADARABI D/O. MOULALI SURANAGI AGE:08 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,

¶10

HAJARATALI S/O. MOULALI SURANAGI AGE:05 YEARS, OCC:NIL,

¶11

JARINA W/O. GOUSUSAB SURANAGI AGE:68 YEARS,OCC:HOUSEWIFE,

¶12

APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS, R.BY M/G BY MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1

¶13

ALL ARE R/O. SALAGERI ONI, SHIGGAON-581205, TQ:SHIGGAON, DIST:HAVERI.

¶14

(BY SRI. HARISH S MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

¶17

MFA No. 100529 of 2019

¶18

AND:

¶19

SAYEDRESHAMANASAB S/O. HUSENSAB BAMMIGATTI AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O. SALAGERI ONI, SHIGGAON-581205, TQ:SHIGGAON, DIST:HAVERI.

¶20

THE MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580023, DIST:DHARWAD.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶23

THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.8/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HAVERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Though this appeal is listed for orders today, with the

¶27

consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶28

Factual matrix of the case of the claimants

¶29

before the Tribunal is that the claimants are the wife,

¶30

¶31

MFA No. 100529 of 2019

¶32

children and mother of deceased, who claimed compensation for the accidental death of deceased Moulali. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, granted Rs.10,16,000/- with interest at 7% p.a. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has only taken income at Rs.6,000/- as against Rs.7,500/- and multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 17 is correct since he was 30 years old. Further, he submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and it ought to have deducted 1/4^th since there are five members and addition of 40% towards future prospects is correct. Thus, sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶34

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent-

¶35

Insurance Company submits that the claimants have not

¶36

¶37

MFA No. 100529 of 2019

¶38

produced any documentary proof regarding income of the deceased and hence the Tribunal has rightly taken the income at Rs.6,000/- and contends that there is no dispute with regard to number of dependants.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income at Rs.6,000/- per month. In the absence of documentary proof with regard to income, for the accidents of the year 2014, the notional income would be Rs.7,500/- and 40% should be added to the income towards future prospects and deduction would be 1/4^th towards personal expenses of the deceased in view of number of dependents being five. Hence, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation under the head loss of dependency:

¶40

Rs.7,500 + Rs.3,000 (Rs.7,500 x 40% addition)= Rs.10,500/Rs.10,500 – Rs.2,625/- (1/4^th deduction) = Rs.7,875/Rs.7,875 x 12 x 17 = Rs.16,06,500/- .

¶41

¶42

MFA No. 100529 of 2019

¶43

6. The claimants are entitled for compensation on

¶44

other conventional heads i.e. love and affection and loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- . Apart from that the claimants are also entitled for Rs.33,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. In all, the claimants are entitled for Rs.18,39,500/- .

¶45

In view of the discussions made above, I pass

¶46

the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Appeal is allowed in part.

¶49

In modification of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.18,39,500/- as against Rs.10,16,000/awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award.

¶50

Enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6%

¶51

p.a. from the date of petition till realization and the

¶52

¶53

MFA No. 100529 of 2019

¶54

compensation is ordered to be paid/deposited within six

¶55

weeks from the date of this order.

¶56

However, the claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 392 days in filing the appeal vide order dated 19.02.2021.

¶57

Apportionment and deposit of the compensation amount would be as per the award of the Tribunal.

¶58

The registry is directed to transmit the trial court records forthwith.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

SH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Bashirabanu W/O. Moulali Suranagi v. Sayedreshamanasab S/O. Husensab Bammigatti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bashirabanu W/O. Moulali Suranagi v. Sayedreshamanasab S/O. Husensab Bammigatti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohan Vs Sadashiv

Ramesh S/O Arjun Koli Vs Sadashiv

Sri Shankaragouda Veeranagouda Tejigoudar Vs Shekaragouda Shankaragouda Tejigoudar

Indo Farm Equipment Ltd., Vs Andappa S/O Ningappa Naregal

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Gajanan S/O. Vasudev Malawade

Yallappa Pandappa Kadavgol Vs Smt Shantawwa D/O Gangappa Lavakki