Allowed

Smt. Shameem Taj v. M/S United India Insurance Co., Limited

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2022MFA/6117/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Section 173(1) Motor Vehicles Act appeal sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The High Court modified the quantum, granting Rs.12.54 lakh total compensation and directing payment with interest at 6% for the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.12,54,800 with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced portion from date of claim filing.

Smt. Shameem Taj Vs M/S United India Insurance Co… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MFA No.6117 OF 2019 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SHAMEEM TAJ W/O. LATE SUYD ALMAZ, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶9

KUM. HEENA KOUSAR D/O. LATE SUYD ALMAZ, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

¶10

MR. SYED SALMAN D/O. LATE SUYD ALMAZ, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

¶11

MASTER:SYED SAHID D/O LATE SUYD ALMAZ, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS.

¶12

SINCE THE 4TH APPELLANT IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. SHAMMEM TAJ W/O. LATE SYED ALMAZ.

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT NO.117, UPPPARPETE VILLAGE,

¶14

¶15

CHANDRAHALLI POST, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. PIN -563 125.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, NO.18, 6TH FLOOR, NEAR KRUSHI BHAVAN HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU -560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶20

M/S. SRI. RANGA FUEL STATION PROP. SOWBHAGYAMMA, BPCL DEALER, T.BEGUR VILLAGE, NH TUMKUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU RURAL DIST. PIN-562 123.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.12.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1391/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIV ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-20), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

¶25

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

¶28

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & V Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayohall unit, Bangalore in MVC No.1391/2017.

¶29

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶30

briefly stated are that on 12.01.2017, when the deceased Syud Almaz was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-07-H-6309, along with pillion rider on IOC road, near Hunasehalli Cross, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Bangalore, at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-52-8481, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against

¶31

¶32

the deceased motor cycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶33

The claimants filed a petition under Section

¶34

166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of

¶35

the deceased along with interest.

¶36

On service of summons, the respondents

¶37

appeared through their respective counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶38

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶39

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 Shameem Taj as PW-1, Syed Salman as PW-2 and Dr. S.A. Somashekar as PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. On behalf of respondents,

¶40

¶41

neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were produced. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.9,42,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶42

The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶43

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 52 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing scrap business. But the Tribunal is not justified in

¶44

¶45

taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.9,000/-.

¶46

Secondly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782] , each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶47

Thirdly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

¶48

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:

¶49

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, the same is not established by the claimants by producing

¶50

¶51

documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly

¶52

assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

¶53

Secondly, on appreciation of oral and

¶54

documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶55

Lastly, he contended that the interest awarded

¶56

by the tribunal at 9% is on higher side, contrary to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of JOYEETA BOSE –V- UNITED INSURANCE

¶57

CO. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶58

Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶59

and perused the records.

¶60

It is not in dispute that deceased Syud

¶61

Almaz died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶62

¶63

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But they have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2017, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.

¶64

To the aforesaid income, the Tribunal has rightly added 10% of the income on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS . Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.12,100/-. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be

¶65

¶66

taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 52 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘11’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.10,64,800/- (Rs.12,100122/3*11) on account of

¶67

‘loss of dependency’.

¶68

In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’. Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-

¶69

under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

¶70

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.2, 3 & 4, children of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’.

¶71

¶72

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the

¶73

following compensation:

¶74

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	10,64,800
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of spousal consortium	40,000
Loss of Parental consortium	1,20,000
Total	12,54,800

¶75

In the result, the appeal is allowed in

¶76

part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶77

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.12,54,800/- as against Rs.9,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶78

In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench

¶79

of this Court in JOYEETA BOSE (supra), enhanced

¶80

compensation carries interest at 6% p.a.

¶81

¶82

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

¶83

the compensation amount along with interest at 9%p.a. (enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum) from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶84

In view of the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 487 days in filing the appeal.

¶85

Sd/JUDGE

¶86

Smt. Shameem Taj v. M/S United India Insurance Co., Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shameem Taj v. M/S United India Insurance Co., Limited

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

The Branch Manager Hdfc Ergo Genl Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Vithendra

Reliance Gic Ltd. Vs K T Manjegowda

Sri. K.T. Manjegowda Vs Mahesh Gowda

Lokesh. T. P. Vs Mari

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri Hanumanthappa

Sri Hanumanthappa Vs Hdfc Ergo General Ins Co. Ltd.