Partly allowed

Smt Shaila Vargis v. Sri Thomas a M

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2022MFA/5687/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the Motor Vehicles Tribunal's decision in a fatal accident case claimant challenged the quantum of compensation underwent proceedings where the Court enhanced the loss of dependency and consolidated loss of consortium awards granting relief to the claimants.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part. The Tribunal's award is modified to grant enhanced compensation of Rs.6,58,250/-.

Smt Shaila Vargis Vs Sri Thomas a M — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

M.F.A.No.5687/2018 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SHAILA VARGIS, W/O LATE KOSHI VARGIS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT ANEJAL HOUSE, ICHILAMPADY POST AND VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT – 574 201.

¶9

SRI. JARIN A.K., S/O LATE KOSHI VARGIS, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, MINOR,

¶10

SRI. JINS A.K., S/O LATE KOSHI VARGIS, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, MINOR,

¶11

KUMARI JEENA A.K., D/O LATE KOSHI VARGIS, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, MINOR,

¶12

APPELLANT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND/MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1 SHAILA VARGIS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, W/O LATE KOSHI VARGIS, R/AT ANEJAL HOUSE,

¶13

¶14

INCHILAMPADY POST AND VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK AND D.K.DISTRICT – 574 201.

¶15

… APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI.HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI. THOMAS A.M., S/O LATE MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O NO.1-8, ARIKKAL HOUSE, INCHILAMPADY POST AND VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D K DISTRICT – 574 201.

¶19

THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE: PRABHU BUILDING, OPP.ARUNA TALKIES, MAIN ROAD, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT – 574 201.

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.ANISH ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.S.KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16/10/2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.1042/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., AND MEMBER, MACT, PUTTUR, D.K. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION..

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for short), challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1042/2016 dated 16.10.2017 by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Puttur, D.K., seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that on

¶28

25.02.2015 at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased-Koshi Vargis was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing No.KA21-L-6914, when he reached near Grama Panchayath, Nelyady Village, Puttur Taluk, an activa honda bearing No.KA-21-K-4076 came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite side and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grevious injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Mangala Hospital, Mangalore and later, he succumbed to

¶29

¶30

the injuries in the hospital. Therefore, the claimants being the wife and three minor children have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation.

¶31

The Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, has granted a compensation of Rs.10,43,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶32

Being aggrieved by the lesser quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager one and prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the compensation awarded

¶35

¶36

by the Tribunal is just and proper and therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶37

7. The Tribunal has granted the compensation

¶38

under various heads as follows:

¶39

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (in.Rs.)
1.	Medicalexpenses	1,90,000.00
2.	Loss of dependency	7,28,000.00
3.	Loss of love and affection	40,000.00
4.	Loss of estate	40,000.00
5.	Loss of consortium	25,000.00
6.	Loss of funeral expenses	20,000.00
	Total	10,43,000.00

¶40

8. The deceased was 46 years and was working

¶41

as Rubber taper, timber business and marriage beauro and claiming that he was earning a sum of Rs.35,000/p.m. The Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- p.m. which is on the lesser side. There is no proof by the claimants that the deceased was earning income of Rs.35,000/- p.m. Therefore, under these circumstances, the notional income as recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the year 2015 is to be taken into

¶42

¶43

consideration. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.9,000/- is taken into consideration. As the deceased was 46 years, 25% of income is to be added. There are four dependents. Hence, 3/4th amount is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The appropriate multiplier applicable is '13'. Therefore, the 'loss of dependency including loss of future prospects in life' is hereby re-assessed and quantified as under:

¶44

Rs.9,000 + Rs.2,250 (25% of Rs.9,000) = Rs.11,250/-

¶45

Rs.11,250 x 13 x 12 x 3/4 = Rs.13,16,250/-

¶46

Accordingly, a sum of Rs.13,16,250/- is awarded under the head 'loss of dependency including loss of future prospects in life'.

¶47

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- towards 'medical expenses', the same is as per the medical bills produced by the claimants, which needs no interference.

¶48

¶49

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.25,000/- under the heads 'loss of love and affection' and 'loss of consortium' which are on the lesser side. As per Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram and Others, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, Rs.40,000/-each is to be awarded under the head 'loss of consortium'. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- is awarded under the head 'loss of consortium including loss of love and affection'.

¶50

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of estate', which is on the higher side. The same is scaled down to Rs.15,000/- and the quantum of compensation awarded under the other heads are just and proper which needs no interference.

¶51

¶52

12. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for the

¶53

following sums:

¶54

Sl.No.	Particulars	Compensation awarded (in Rs.)
1.	Medical expenses	1,90,000.00
2.	Loss of dependency	13,16,250.00
3.	Loss of consortium including loss of love and affection	1,60,000.00
4.	Loss ofestate	15,000.00
5.	Loss of funeralexpnese	20,000.00
	TOTAL	17,01,250.00

¶55

The Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.10,43,000/-, but the appellants/claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.17,01,250/- . Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6,58,250/- (Rs.17,01,250 - Rs.10,43,000) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶56

¶57

14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶60

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.1042/2016 is hereby modified holding the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.6,58,250/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶61

iii. The claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 161 days in filing the appeal.

¶62

iv. Costs made easy.

¶63

v. Draw award accordingly.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

Smt Shaila Vargis v. Sri Thomas a M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shaila Vargis v. Sri Thomas a M

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

Harish Shetty Vs Ananda Devadiga

The Manager Vs Sri Ramesh

Sri Raja Vs Sri Rajakumar

The Divisional Controller Vs Puneeth Kumari. B. R.

Munuf @ Abdul Munaf Vs Mercedes Benz India Ltd.

Vinaya Vs Narayana B