Partly allowed

Smt. Bhagirathi W/O Sonu Joshi v. General Manager

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2022MFA/22705/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal sought enhancement of motor accident compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The High Court applied the National Insurance Company ruling to calculate future prospects, enhancing the award to Rs. 5,74,000/-. Reduced compensation was awarded for loss of dependency. Loss of consortium and funeral expenses were also included.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced by Rs. 2,13,000/- to a total of Rs. 5,74,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Respondent-Insurance Corporation directed to deposit the amount.

Smt. Bhagirathi W/O Sonu Joshi Vs General Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 22705 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22705 OF 2010 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. BHAGIRATHI W/O SONU JOSHI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O MABHALE, TAL. SANGAMESHWAR C/O. TAVANAPPA BHARAMANNA TIGADOLLI, BASTI GALLI, MACHHE, TAL. BELGAUM, DIST. BELGAUM

¶8

KUM. HRISHIKESH SHANTARAM JOSHI AGE: MINOR, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REP. BY NATURAL GRANDMOTHER M/G SMT. BHAGIRATHI W/O SONU JOSHI R/O MABHALE, TAL. SANGAMESHWAR C/O. TAVANAPPA BHARAMANNA TIGADOLLI BASTI GALLI, MACHHE, TAL. BELGAUM.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. V VISHWANATH BADIGER, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by JAGADISH T R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD

¶12

AND:

¶13

GENERAL MANAGER

¶14

M.S.R.T.C., DR. ANAND RAO NAIR MARG, OPP. CENTRAL RAILWAY STATION, BAIKULA, MUMBAI-400008

¶15

MR. GURUNATH RAJARAM PRABHU ZANTYE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O AJAGAON, TAL. SAWANTWADI DIST. SINDHUDURGA (OWNER OF MARUTI OMINI VAN NO. MH-07/B-0367)

¶16

¶17

MFA No. 22705 of 2010

¶18

DIVISIONAL MANAGER

¶19

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KIRLOSKAR ROAD, SHANBAG CHAMBERS, IV FLOOR, BELGAUM (INSURER OF MARUTI VAN MH-07/B-0367)

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. C V ANGADI, ADV., FOR R1; SRI. K. L. PATIL, ADV., FOR R3; R2- NOTICE SERVED;)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.01.2008, IN MVC NO.2107/2002 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM AT BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is at the instance of the of the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Judgment and Award dated 16.01.2008 in MVC No.2107/2002 passed by the learned III-Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Additional M.A.C.T., Belgaum (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

¶26

¶27

MFA No. 22705 of 2010

¶28

Brief facts are that deceased-Yojana was

¶29

proceeding in a car bearing registration No.MH-07/B-0376 and on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus bearing registration No.MH-12/Q-8815, it dashed against the car resulting in death of the deceased.

¶30

The claim petition was resisted by the respondent-Transport Corporation by filing its written statement.

¶31

After trail and hearing the learned counsel on both sides and perusing the records, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part awarding compensation of Rs.3,61,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.

¶32

Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant, in support of his appeal, strenuously contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it is required to be enhanced.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-

¶34

Corporation vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal

¶35

¶36

MFA No. 22705 of 2010

¶37

has passed the award after examining the records and the award being just and reasonable, there is no merit in the appeal and it is required to be dismissed.

¶38

The accident took place on 20.06.2002. One

¶39

Yojana is the deceased. Learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.3,61,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum with a further direction that only the son of the deceased is entitled to receive the compensation. The only question that arises is, whether the compensation so awarded is just and reasonable and whether there is any case made out for enhancing the compensation so awarded?

¶40

Deceased was said to be aged 38 years at the time of the accident. The appropriate multiplier applicable to this case is ‘15’. Since no acceptable proof was furnished before the learned Tribunal, regarding the actual income of the deceased, it took the notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month. Since the said finding is a reasonable one having regard to the date of the death of the deceased in the year

¶41

¶42

MFA No. 22705 of 2010

¶43

2002 I affirm the same. Since the deceased was a married person 1/3^rd of her monthly income is required to be deducted towards her personal expenses. In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others¹ , 40% of the established income is required to be added towards loss of future prospects. Accordingly, the loss of dependency to which the claimant is entitled to is calculated as under:

¶44

Rs.3000 + Rs.1,200 (40%) = Rs.4,200 Rs.4,200 – Rs.1,400 (1/3^rd ) = Rs.2,800 Rs.2,800 x 12 x 15 =Rs.5,04,000/-

¶45

9. Since the deceased left behind a son, a sum of

¶46

Rs.40,000/- is required to be awarded towards loss of parental consortium and another sum of Rs.30,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to total compensation, which is as follows:

¶47

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶48

¶49

MFA No. 22705 of 2010

¶50

	Head	Amount
		(in Rs.)
Towards loss of future prospects	dependency along with	Rs.5,04,000/-
Towards loss of pa	rental consortium	Rs.40,000/-
Towards funeral estate.	expenses and loss of	Rs.30,000/-
	Total	Rs.5,74,000/-

¶51

Learned Tribunal has already awarded a

¶52

compensation of Rs.3,61,000/- and hence, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,13,000/along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.

¶53

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in

¶54

part .

¶55

12. The respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit

¶56

the compensation amount along with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶57

¶58

MFA No. 22705 of 2010

¶59

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending

¶60

interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed off accordingly.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

YAN

Smt. Bhagirathi W/O Sonu Joshi v. General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhagirathi W/O Sonu Joshi v. General Manager

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

Bapuji Vidya Samsthe (Regd) Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Shrinivas S/O Gaopalrao Vs Shidramappa S/O Virappa, Kadlimatti

K. Subrahmanya Hegde S/O Subba Hegde Vs Irappa Maddiyavar S/O Mallikarjun

New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs Sri. Ravindra S/O Panduranga Ankolekar

Sri Chandrappa Vs Mohamad Ismail

Sri. B. Annu Vs the Manager