Partly allowed

Smt. Mallamma W/O Kalakamalleshi Teredal, v. Vikas Transport

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2022MFA/20327/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court of Karnataka increased the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for a motor accident claim, directing the insurance company to pay an enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 19,85,440 with 6% interest per annum; insurance company directed to pay difference within six weeks.

Smt. Mallamma W/O Kalakamalleshi Teredal, Vs Vikas… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 20327 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20327 OF 2011 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. MALLAMMA W/O KALAKAMALLESHI TEREDAL AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

¶10

VIDYADHAR S/O KALAKAMALLESHI TEREDAL AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: NIL

¶11

GANGADHAR S/O KALAKAMALLESHI TEREDAL AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: NIL

¶12

SMT. YALLAMMA W/O ONKARAPPA TEREDAL AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: NIL ALL ARE R/O AHSA FEEDS SHRIRAM COLONY, NEKAR NAGAR HUBLI

¶13

Digitally signed by J MAMATHA Location: J Dharwad MAMATHA Date: 2022.09.09 11:11:02 +0530

¶14

(BY SRI NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

VIKAS TRANSPORT R/O JASAI, TQ. URAN RAIGAD

¶17

… APPELLANTS

¶18

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED MUMBAI, BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE SHRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET HUBLI

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

¶22

MFA No. 20327 of 2011

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.380/2006 BY I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AND ADDITONAL MACT, HUBLI AND ETC.

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2insurance company.

¶27

The factual matrix of the case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that the deceased was working as ASI and he was drawing salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and he was aged about 50 years at the time of the accident and his family has lost the earning member of the family. The Tribunal while answering Issue No.2 taken the income of the deceased as Rs.11,785/- and not added compensation under future prospects. The counsel submits that it requires to be added the future prospects and compensation awarded on the other heads are very meager. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶28

¶29

MFA No. 20327 of 2011

¶30

Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company would submit that the future prospects has to be added only at the rate of 15% and not at the rate of 30% since the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of the accident and the Tribunal also taken note of the age of the deceased as mentioned in the PM report. The counsel submits that the city allowance cannot be considered as income.

¶31

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record it is not in dispute that the deceased was working as ASI and he was drawing the salary of Rs.11,935/- as per Ex.P7 and statutory deduction of Rs.150/- was taken by the Tribunal but failed to add future prospects. Now the question before this Court is whether future prospects has to be added at 30% or 15% since the deceased was having permanent job. The contention of the counsel for the insurance company is that in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY

¶32

SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the future prospects between the age of 50 to 60 years, it is mentioned as 15% and the contention of the counsel for the appellants that between the age of 40 to 50 years, it should be

¶33

¶34

MFA No. 20327 of 2011

¶35

30% and in terms of PM report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 50 years and in order to prove the quantum that the deceased was more than aged 50 years, no documents are placed before the Court and only mentioned as 50 years in the PM report. When such being the case, 30% has to be added to the future prospects and not 15% as contended by the counsel for the insurance company. In the absence of any documentary proof with regard to the correct age, the Court cannot presume that the deceased was more than 50 years at the time of the accident. Hence, the contention of the insurance company cannot be accepted.

¶36

5. Now the ‘loss of dependency’ is calculated as under:

¶37

Monthly income	–	Rs.11,785.00
Add: 30% towards Future prospects	-	Rs. 3,535.00
		--------------
	-	Rs.15,320.00
Less: 1/4^thtowards
Personal expenses	-	Rs. 3,830.00
		--------------
	-	Rs.11,490.00 --------------
Loss of dependency	=	Rs.17,92,440.00
(Rs.11,490.00 x 12 x 13)		-------------------

¶38

¶39

MFA No. 20327 of 2011

¶40

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of

¶41

Rs.10,000/- towards consortium and the same requires to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/- and awarded Rs.40,000/- each to other claimants on the head of love and affection, in total Rs.1,60,000/- and towards loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the same is enhanced to an amount of Rs.33,000/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled for the

¶42

following enhanced compensation:

¶43

Sl. No.	Heads	Award by Tribunal	Award by High Court
1	Loss of dependency	13,78,845.00	17,92,440.00
2	Consortium	10,000.00	40,000.00
3	Loss of estate and funeral expenses	15,000.00	33,000.00
5	Love and affection	Nil	1,20,000.00
	Total	14,03,845.00	19,85,440.00
	Enhanced	compensation is	Rs.5,81,595.00

¶44

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶45

following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶48

¶49

MFA No. 20327 of 2011

¶50

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 01.10.2009 passed in MVC No.380/2006 by I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Additional MACT, Hubli is modified granting compensation of Rs.19,85,440.00 as against Rs.14,03,845.00 with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation.

¶51

(iii) The insurance company is directed to pay the difference of compensation amount with interest within six weeks from the date of this order.

¶52

(iv) The registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith, if any.

¶53

(Sd/-) JUDGE

¶54

Smt. Mallamma W/O Kalakamalleshi Teredal, v. Vikas Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mallamma W/O Kalakamalleshi Teredal, v. Vikas Transport

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

Raziya Begum Vs Arjuna G Ganachari

Ravikumar M @ Ravikumar Nayak Vs State of Karnataka

Rajesh Kumar Rai Vs the State of Karnataka

Namesh S/O Bahubali Sooji Vs Bilal S/O Niyaz Sait

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Madevi Nagesh Naik

Irappa S/O Basappa Julpi, Vs Ranjeet Vikramsinh Aparadh