Partly allowed

Mohammed Ibrahim v. Universal Sompo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2022MFA/1963/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed an appeals filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court awarded separate compensation for loss of estate, calculating Rs. 2,85,000 based on notional income and a multiplier of five, enhancing the total claim from Rs. 87,690 to Rs. 3,72,690.

What did the court decide?

Awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.2,85,000 for loss of estate with 6% interest; total compensation raised to Rs.3,72,690.

Mohammed Ibrahim Vs Universal Sompo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1963/2017 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM S/O LATE NAZEER AHMED AGED 56 YEARS

¶8

SHAHEEN TAJ D/O LATE NAZEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶9

MOHAMMED GOUSE S/O LATE NAZEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶10

KHALID AHMED D/O LATE NAZEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶11

JABEEN TAJ D/O LATE NAZEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT: NO.377 EWS, 1^ST STAGE BANNIMANTAPA

¶12

MYSORE-15.

¶13

… APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

AND:

¶17

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GEN. INS. COM. LIM., NO.217/A, 3^RD FLOOR, KW SMART 3^RD MAIN, OUTER RING ROAD KASTURINAGAR BANGALORE-43 POLICY ISSUED BY ITS OFFICE IN POLICY NO.2314/53833717/0-1/000 DATE OF VALIDITY FROM 18.2.2015 TO 17.02.2016

¶18

SURENDRA KUMAR N S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY MAJOR R/AT NO.1059/58/4/1, 1^ST CROSS PAPAIAH LAYOUT MURUGESHPALYA BANGALORE-17

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD. 28.03.2018)

¶21

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1568/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ASCJ AND XX ACMM AND MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the claimants challenging the

¶25

¶26

judgment and award dated 28.11.2016, passed in MVC No.1568/2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and XX ACMM (20th ACMM), BENGALURU, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶27

Brief facts:

¶28

It is stated that on 05.02.2016 at about 10.00 p.m., when the deceased was crossing the Bellary road at Kempapura, Bengaluru, in front of Columbia Asia Hospital slowly and cautiously, observing all traffic norms on the said road, at that time a car bearing Registration No.KA03-AB-1863 was coming at a very high speed rash and negligently dashed against the deceased. Consequently, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries all over his body. Immediately he was shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital, wherein he was treated as in-patient. But in spite of best treatment given by the doctors, the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the said hospital on 05.02.2016 at about 11.55 p.m. On service of summons, respondent No.1 has appeared through it's counsel before

¶29

¶30

the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 remained absent and hence placed exparte.

¶31

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, before the Tribunal claiming compensation. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.87,690/- along with interest at 8% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal held respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellants- claimants submitted that the compensation towards loss of estate was not awarded independently but that is clubbed along with loss of love and affection and granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- which is a meager. Further submitted that the claimants entitled to the compensation under the head of loss of estate as they are major children. Therefore, prays for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation.

¶33

¶34

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1- Insurance Company submitted that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal on each head is correct and proper, which needs no interference. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶36

In the present case, the compensation awarded by

¶37

the Tribunal is as follows:

¶38

Medical Bills	:	Rs.	12,690/-
Loss of Love and affection and loss of estate	:	Rs.	50,000/-
Transportation expenses	:	Rs.	5,000/-
Funeral and obsequies ceremony	:	Rs.	20,000/-
expenses
TOTAL	:	Rs.	87,690/-

¶39

The Tribunal has not awarded the compensation under the head 'loss of estate' separately. The compensation amount awarded on other heads are found to be correct but considering the age of the deceased and claimants are being major children the claimants are

¶40

¶41

entitled compensation to the loss of estate. The deceased was aged 80 years old and the claimants are major children. Therefore, the compensation under the head of loss of estate is to be awarded by granting 50% of the income of the deceased. The accident was occurred in the year 2016 and since there is no evidence regarding proof of income, notional income of Rs.9,500/- per annum is taken into consideration as notional income recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and then multiplier '5' is to be added. Therefore, loss of estate is calculated and computed as Rs.9,500 X 50/100 X 5X 12= Rs.2,85,000/-. Accordingly, compensation of

¶42

Rs.2,85,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of estate.

¶43

Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for the following enhanced compensation under various heads as follows:

¶44

Medical Bills	:	Rs.	12,690/-
Loss of love and affection	:	Rs.	50,000/-
Loss of estate	:	Rs.	2,85,000/-
Transportation expenses	:	Rs.	5,000/-

¶45

¶46

Funeral and	obsequies	ceremony	:	Rs.	20,000/-
expenses
		TOTAL	:	Rs.	3,72,690/-

¶47

Thus, the appellants are awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,72,690/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.87,690/- . The appellants are therefore entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- (Rs.3,72,690 – Rs.87,690), along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit. Therefore, the judgment and award is modified to the extent of Rs.2,85,000/- towards loss of estate. The compensation granted by the Tribunal towards other heads is kept intact. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The appeal is allowed in part .

¶50

ii. The judgment and award dated 28.11.2016, passed in MVC No.1568/2016, on the file of XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and XX ACMM (20th ACMM), Bengaluru, is hereby

¶51

¶52

modified that the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- (Rs.3,72,690 – Rs.87,690) with interest @ 6% per annum, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest.

¶53

iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶54

iv. Draw the award accordingly.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

SKS

Mohammed Ibrahim v. Universal Sompo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ibrahim v. Universal Sompo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

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

The Managing Director Vs Shri Yogesha K L @ Yogesh K L

Shri Yogesha K L @ Yogesh K L Vs the Managing Director

Legal Manager Vs Hanumanthaiah

Sri Ankesh Vs Liberty Videocon

Nithyananda Shetty K Vs Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Siddaramu K @ Siddaramaiah K Vs Praveen M N