Partly allowed

Damayanthi P Shettigar v. Mr Jayanth Kumar

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2022MFA/5270/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Modified Award challenging quantum of compensation awarded under Motor Vehicles Act. Court held Insurance Company bound by Supreme Court ruling rejecting split multiplier. Adjusted compensation considering prognosis, medical bills, and general expenses.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified granting compensation of Rs.36,97,250/- with interest at 6% per annum until deposit payable by Respondent.

Damayanthi P Shettigar Vs Mr Jayanth Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

M.F.A.NO.5270/2014 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DAMAYANTHI P. SHETTIGAR, W/O PURUSHOTHAMA SHETTIGAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶9

SUKANYA, D/O PURUSHOTHAMA SHETTIGAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

¶10

SUREKHA, D/O PURUSHOTHAMA SHETTIGAR, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶11

SUPRIYA, D/O PURUSHOTHAMA SHETTIGAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

¶12

ALL ARE R/A “SUKAPRIYA NILAYA”, CHELLAR ROAD, 4^TH CROSS, KARKALA, KARKALA TALUK, DK DISTRICT-574104.

¶13

...APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

MR. JAYANTH KUMAR, S/O GANAPATHI, MAJOR, R/AT H.NO.2-99, NEAR BHAVISYA NAGAR ENCLAVE,

¶17

¶18

MOODUSHEDDE, VAMANJOOR, THIRUVAIL VILLAGE, MANGALORE, DK DISTRICT-575014.

¶19

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SALDHANA BUILDING, BRIDGE ROAD, BALMATTA, MANGALORE, DK DISTRICT-575001. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶20

MR. RAJESH, S/O SHEENA KOTIAN, MAJOR, R/A BELLIBETTU HOUSE, GURUPURA POST, MANGALORE TALUK, DK DISTRICT-575008.

¶21

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., EMJAYS COMPLEX, 1^ST FLOOR, NETRAVATHI BUILDING, NEAR JUICE JUNCTION , BALMATTA, MANGALORE TALUK, DK DISTRICT-575001. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI S. SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, NOTICE TO R-1, R-3 AND R-4 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 20.01.2015)

¶24

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1290/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, D.K., MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final disposal.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶30

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 15.04.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.1290/2008 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Member, MACT IV, D.K., Mangalore (‘the Tribunal’ for short) questioning the quantum of compensation.

¶31

In this appeal, the claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased have contended that the deceased was working as a Manager in State Bank of Mysore and have produced the document of Ex.P.12, salary certificate to show that he was getting salary of Rs.33,421/- per month and out of that Rs.5,000/- was deducted towards income tax and Rs.200/towards professional tax and after deducting the same, it comes to Rs.28,221/-.

¶32

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in applying the split multiplier. The learned counsel submits that the compensation awarded under other heads are very meager and under the head loss of love and affection only Rs.30,000/was awarded and he was an inpatient for a period of five months 15 days and after prolonged treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶34

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal has rightly taken the split multiplier because he was aged about 54 years and remaining service was only six years and hence applied the split multiplier and awarded compensation and hence it does not require interference of this Court.

¶35

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel

¶36

for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and also on perusal of the material available on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:

¶37

¶38

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation?

¶39

(ii) What order?

¶40

Point No.(i):

¶41

Having heard the respective learned counsel, it is an appeal with regard to questioning of quantum of compensation. In terms of Ex.P.12 salary certificate, his gross salary was Rs.33,421/- per month and income tax of Rs.5,000/- was deducted every month and apart from that, Rs.200/- was deducted towards professional tax and after deducting the same it comes to Rs.28,221/-. The very contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the Tribunal rightly considered the split multiplier and it does not require any interference, cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R. VALLI AND OTHERS v. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED reported in (2022) 5 SCC 107, wherein the Apex Court categorically held that applying of the split multiplier is erroneous. Hence, the contention of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted with regard to split multiplier.

¶42

¶43

9. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of

¶44

Rs.19,21,952/- towards loss of dependency. Now taking the income of the deceased at Rs.28,221/- per month, the loss of dependency is calculated as under:

¶45

Monthly income	–	Rs.28,221/-
Add: 15% towards Future prospects	-	Rs.4,233/-
		--------------
Less: 1/4^thtowards	-	Rs.32,454,/-
Personal expenses	-	Rs.8,114/-
		--------------
	-	Rs.24,340/-
		-------------------
Loss of dependency	=	Rs.32,12,880/-
(Rs.24,340/- x 12 x 11)		--------------------

¶46

Apart from that, the wife and three children are

¶47

entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- each i.e., Rs.1,60,000/under conventional head. The claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.33,000/- under the head loss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶48

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the deceased was an inpatient for a period of five months 15 days and original medical bills are also produced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal considered the same and awarded an amount of

¶49

¶50

Rs.2,16,370/- towards medical expenses and hence the very contention of the Insurance Company that he has got the benefit of medical reimbursement cannot be accepted when the original medical bills are produced before the Tribunal itself. The medical expenses is awarded based on the documentary evidence and hence the same does not require any interference of this Court.

¶51

The deceased was hospitalized for a period of five months 15 days and to show the same, the claimants have produced Ex.P.13 discharge bill, wherein it is mentioned that he was an inpatient from 02.03.2008 to 18.08.2008 and hence the claimants are also entitled for compensation under the head conveyance, food and nourishment and transportation. Having considered the prolonged period of treatment, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.75,000/- under the said head.

¶52

In all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.36,97,250/- as against Rs.22,26,000/-.

¶53

Point No.(ii):

¶54

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶55

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶58

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 15.04.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.1290/2008, is modified granting compensation of Rs.36,97,250/- as against Rs.22,26,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶59

(iii) The appellant No.1 being the wife of the deceased shall be entitled for 40% of the compensation amount and the appellant Nos.2 to 4 being the children are entitled for 20% each of the compensation amount.

¶60

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

¶61

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

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

Damayanthi P Shettigar v. Mr Jayanth Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Damayanthi P Shettigar v. Mr Jayanth Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Susila W/O. Shamrao Patil

Smt.Mangalabai W/O Hanumanthasa Vs Saddam Hussain S/O Maiboobsab

Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd., Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Ajjagappa @ Ajjaganna Vs Ravishankar M J

Sri Somashekar Vs Sri G Rajendran

Umesh. P. P. Vs State of Karnataka