Partly allowed

Puttandamma v. Murugesh N

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2022MFA/3031/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the Motor Vehicles Tribunal's order that dismissed the second claim petition as not maintainable. The Court awarded compensation of Rs. 9,04,600 with interest based on calculated notional income and headings for love and affection and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and award set aside; compensation of Rs.9,04,600 with 6% interest per annum awarded against Insurance Company.

Puttandamma Vs Murugesh N — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

M.F.A.NO.3031/2014 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PUTTANDAMMA W/O. LATE MOLLEKEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT KAMAGERE KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 305.

¶8

... APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI SANATH KUMARA K.M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MURUGESH N. S/O. NATESH R/AT GEJJALANATHA RAMAPURA POST, KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 301.

¶12

DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD SRI VENKATESHWARA PLAZA NO.2912, 1^ST STAGE

¶13

SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE-571 105.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI H.B. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI ANUP SEETHARAM RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶16

¶17

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.75/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KOLLEGAL DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION.

¶18

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

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶21

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 23.12.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.75/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kollegala (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶22

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶23

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before

¶24

the Tribunal is that her son met with an accident on 16.11.2010 and earlier, a claim petition was filed under Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act in M.V.C.No.366/2010, wherein it was pleaded that

¶25

her son was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. Hence, the Tribunal

¶26

¶27

dismissed the petition on the ground that the same is not maintainable since, income was shown as Rs.9,000/- per month. Hence, the claimant filed another petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in M.V.C.No.75/2012. The Tribunal, considering the material on record, answered issue No.1 as ‘affirmative’ in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and it amounts to res-judicata since, the present claim petition was a second petition. Hence, the said order is challenged before the Court.

¶28

The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of

¶29

M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER VS. SMT. ASHABAI AND

¶30

OTHERS reported in 2008 (3) T.A.C. 564 (BOM.) , wherein the Bombay High Court held that dismissal of the claim petition under Section 163(A) of M.V. Act is not maintainable and the claimant can always file a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Bombay High

¶31

Court, the finding of the Tribunal is to be set aside. Learned

¶32

¶33

counsel would submit that it was the accident of the year 2010 and the Tribunal answered issue No.1 as ‘affirmative’ in coming to the conclusion that accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the Tribunal has not given any finding with regard to the negligence. He would also submit that, in the absence of documentary evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, the matter can be considered taking the notional income.

¶35

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, in view of the judgment of the Bombay High Court, the claimant can always file a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that res-judicata applies. Though earlier the matter was not decided on merits, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable only on the ground that it was filed under Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act. When such being the case, the same requires to be

¶36

¶37

interfered and the judgment and award of the Tribunal requires to be set aside.

¶38

Now coming to the quantum of compensation,

¶39

though the claimant claim that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month, in the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income. Having considered the notional income at Rs.5,500/- per month and since he is aged about 21 years and he is a bachelor, this Court can add 40% towards future prospects and after adding the same, the income comes to Rs.7,700/- per month. The deceased is a bachelor and hence, 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses and after deducting the same, the income comes to Rs.3,850/- per month. Hence, taking the income at Rs.3,850/- per month and the multiplier of ‘18’, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.8,31,600/- (3,850 x 12 x 18).

¶40

Apart from that, the claimant being the mother of the deceased is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- on the head of love and affection.

¶41

¶42

The claimant is also entitled for an amount of Rs.33,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Hence, in all, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.9,04,600/- with interest at 6% per annum.

¶43

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶44

following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶47

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 23.12.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.75/2012, is set aside granting compensation of Rs.9,04,600/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶48

(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount with interest within six weeks from today.

¶49

(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Puttandamma v. Murugesh N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puttandamma v. Murugesh N

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

Geetha Vs K Annappaswamy

Sri Kiran Kumar J.S. @ Kiran Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

The Managing Director Vs Kumari Varshitha P

Smt Sannamma Vs Sri Kiran Kumar @ Kiran

R Mohamed Gouspeer Vs M Vishvanth

Hanumappa @ Hanumanna @ Hanumanthappa Vs Universal Sompo General Insu.Co Ltd.