Partly allowed

Mahadevakka W/O Sankrapa Bullammanavar v. the Partner

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2022MFA/101509/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka enhanced compensation from Rs.10,02,000 to Rs.16,59,800 in a Motor Vehicles Act appeal, correcting notional income to Rs.10,250 and applying a 40% incremental value, and directed insurer to pay the difference with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.16,59,800; insurer directed to pay differential within 8 weeks plus delay interest.

Mahadevakka W/O Sankrapa Bullammanavar Vs the Partner — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 101509 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101509 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MAHADEVAKKA W/O SANKRAPA BULLAMMANAVAR AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/O.MALAPUR, PO:KALLIHAL, TQ AND DIST:HAVERI – 581110.

¶10

SHANKRAPPA S/O NEELAPPA BULLAMMANAVAR AGE:63 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O.MALAPUR, PO:KALLIHAL, TQ AND DIST:HAVERI – 581110.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI M. H . PATIL AND H. M. PATIL, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE PARTNER NA M/S.555 FISHERIES ROOM NO.5, FISH TRADE CENTRE BOUNDER, MALPE, DIST:UDUPI, PIN:576108.

¶15

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V VINAYAKA Location: B V DHARWAD Date: 2022.06.04 11:21:31 +0530

¶16

THE DEPUTY MANAGER LEGAL CLAIM, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ITS BRANCH BRANCH OFFICE, AT V.A.KALABURGI SQUIRE, II FLOOR, CLUB ROAD, DESAI CROSS, HUBLI. DIST: DHARWAD – 580021.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI S. V. YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 SERVED)

¶19

¶20

MFA No. 101509 of 2019

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.112/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HAVERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY KRISHNA S. DIXIT J., PASSED FOLLOWING;

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This appeal filed by the complainants calls in question the Judgment & Award dated 05.01.2019 rendered by MACT, Haveri whereby the compensation of Rs.10,02,000/- has been awarded with an interest at the

¶25

rate of 6% p.a. subject to usual condition of apportionment between the parents of the deceased in the ratio of 80:20 and also with usual condition of bank deposit. The appeal is structured on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

¶26

After service of notice, the respondent-insurer having entered appearance through its Panel Counsel vehemently resists the appeal making submissions in justification of impugned Judgment & Award. The Panel Counsel vehemently contends that the MACT has

¶27

¶28

MFA No. 101509 of 2019

¶29

advantage of accumulated wisdom and therefore what has been awarded by it should be left unaltered. So contending he sought for the dismissal of appeal.

¶30

THE FOUNDATIONAL FACTS:

¶31

(a) The accident in question happened on 04.11.2017 at around 8 of the clock. The offending lorry bearing Registration No.KA20/D-6085 having been driven rashly & negligently dashed to the son of claimants, namely Mr.Girish S/o Shankrappa Bullammanavar, who was aged 24 years. He having sustained fatal injuries succumbed to the same, on the spot. The claimants being the parents moved MVC No.112/2018 seeking compensation. This was stoutly opposed by the Insurer by filing the Written Statement.

¶32

(b) To prove the claim, father of the deceased i.e., the second claimant herein got

¶33

¶34

MFA No. 101509 of 2019

¶35

examined himself as PW1. In his deposition, as many as 11 documents came to be marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 which inter alia comprised of Police Papers, RTO Papers, Aadhaar Cards, etc. None was examined from the side of Insurer, nor any document came to be produced. The MACT having adverted to the pleadings of the parties and having weighed the evidentiary material on record has entered the Judgment & Award that are put in challenge grieving that what has been awarded as compensation is meager.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶37

and having perused appeal papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶38

a) There is no much dispute as to the happening of accident and the

¶39

¶40

MFA No. 101509 of 2019

¶41

circumstances in which it happened. The life of a young boy was abruptly cut short because of this accident. The claim petition,

¶42

as already mentioned above, has been favoured by the Tribunal. The contention of the claimants that the MACT had taken Rs.9,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased when the Lok Adalat Notional Income Chart prescribes Rs.10,250/- for the accident year in question, has force.

¶43

b) Ordinarily where no evidentiary material is produced to establish the income of a person, the figures mentioned in the Income Chart are taken, subject to all just exceptions into which argued case of the insurer does not fit. No reasons are assigned by the MACT for not operating the Chart Values. To that extent there is an infirmity in the impugned judgment &

¶44

¶45

MFA No. 101509 of 2019

¶46

award. This needs to be rectified by taking Rs.10,250/- as the notional monthly income of the deceased.

¶47

c) Learned counsel appearing for the claimants is more than justified in contenting that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in PRANAY SETHI AND

¶48

OTHERS VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

¶49

LTD ., 2017 SCC 5157 , the Tribunal ought to have granted an incremental value of 40% regard being had to the age of deceased. Of

¶50

course the decision in Pranay Sethi came much after the accident in question, but it was there before the matter was decided at the hands of the MACT. In view of that the

¶51

claimants are entitled to 40% Incremental Value on the compensation to be re-worked on the basis of notional monthly income now taken as discussed above.

¶52

¶53

MFA No. 101509 of 2019

¶54

The loss of the dependency is re-worked out

¶55

with the altered factors as under:

¶56

Rs.10,250 + 40% - 50 X 12 18= Rs.15,49,800/-

¶57

To the above amount, a sum of Rs.40,000/- payable

¶58

by way of compensation for each of the claimants toward loss of filial consortium needs to be added.

¶59

The compensation is freshly computed with the aid of

¶60

Calculation Memo furnished at the Bar, as under:

¶61

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (In Rupees)
1.	Loss of Dependency	15,49,800
2.	Loss of Felal	80,000
3.	Loss of Estate	15,000
4.	Towards funeral exp	15,000
	Total	16,59,800

¶62

¶63

MFA No. 101509 of 2019

¶64

In the above circumstances this appeal succeeds.

¶65

The impugned judgment & award of the MACT having been modified the compensation is enhanced from Rs.10,02,000/-(Rupees Ten lakh Two thousand) to Rs.16,59,800/- (Rupees Sixteen lakh Fifty Nine thousand Eight hundred) all other terms and conditions thereof having been left intact.

¶66

The insurer is directed to make good the differential of the compensation within 8 weeks, failing which the delay would attract additional interest of 6%.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

SSP

Mahadevakka W/O Sankrapa Bullammanavar v. the Partner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadevakka W/O Sankrapa Bullammanavar v. the Partner

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

M/S Vijayanand Roadlines Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Rakesh v Guttakulam S/O Sri Venkatesh Vs Senior Deputy General Manager (Sdgm)

Smt. Thirumala W/O Mallikarjun M Vs the State of Karnataka

Shrikant S/O Krishtarao Huilgol Vs the Land Acquisition Officer

Mrs/ Vijanath Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Authorized Officer

Sri Siddaramappa Hosakeri Vs the State of Karnataka