The High Court allowed the appeal partly, modifying the Tribunal's award in a motor accident compensation case. Enhancing the compensation from Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.5 lakhs and interest from 6% to 9%, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Kishan Gopal.
Compensation enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
MFA No. 100768 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100768 OF
2016 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. UMESH C AINAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
MFA No. 100768 of 2016
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:06.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1834/2014 ON THE FILE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
before the Tribunal is that on 08.08.2014 when deceased minor girl was proceeding on Miraj-Pandarpur road and when she reached near Vittalwadi village, driver of MSRTC bus bearing No.MH-14/BT-2849 drove the same in rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the girl. As a result, she has sustained injuries. It is contended by the
MFA No. 100768 of 2016
claimants that she was studying in LKG and as a result of injuries she succumbed to injuries and the claimants have lost their daughter who was aged about 5 years.
MFA No. 100768 of 2016
claimants herein. He also contends that the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and prayed for awarding 9% interest.
would submit that the minor girl was aged about 5 years and hence reasonable compensation is awarded by the Tribunal and it does not require any interference.
the following points would arise for consideration:
9. Regarding Point No.1 : Having heard the
learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the minor girl was aged about 5 years and succumbed due to accidental injuries. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishan Gopal, supra
MFA No. 100768 of 2016
considering that the deceased was aged about 10 years and also considering the age of the father and mother and also taking note of drastically falling of rupee value, assessed the income at Rs.30,000/- per annum and by adopting multiplier of 15, awarded Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, awarded Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. While awarding the said compensation, awarded interest at 9% p.a. by relying on the judgement reported in 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) .
discussions made above, I pass the following:
MFA No. 100768 of 2016
ORDER
Appeal is allowed in part.
In modification of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with 9% interest as against Rs.3,00,000/- with 6% interest awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award.
Apportionment and deposit of the compensation amount would be as per the award of the Tribunal.
Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be
transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.
The registry is directed to transmit the trial court records forthwith.
Sd/JUDGE
SH
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation for the death of a 5-year-old minor?
Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding interest at 6% per annum instead of a higher rate?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kishan Gopal and Another vs. Lala and OthersApplied¶34
2013 ACJ 2594
2012 ACJ 48 (SC)Referred¶48
Ankush Dhayagude and Surekha Dhayagude
The General Manager MSRTC
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
