Partly allowed

Smt. Vijayamma v. Sri Pasha Jan

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2023MFA/1349/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This First Appeal sought enhancement of motor accident compensation awarded by the tribunal following the death of V.Sandeep. The High Court partially allowed the appeal, directing the insurer to pay an additional sum of Rs.2,75,300 along with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs.2,75,300 with 6% per annum interest from date of petition; liability to deposit bears by Respondent No.2 within six weeks.

Smt. Vijayamma Vs Sri Pasha Jan — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:25290 MFA No. 1349 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1349 OF 2022 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. VIJAYAMMA,

¶10

W/O VENKATAPPA.M,

¶11

NOW AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶12

SRI M VENKATAPPA,

¶13

S/O LATE DASARI MUNIVENKATAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶14

SMT. V DIVYA, D/O VENKATAPPA.M, NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶15

SMT. V SHILPA, D/O M VENKATAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

¶16

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

V SHWETHA, D/O M VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶18

ALL ARE R/AT:

¶19

RAILWAY STATION ROAD, VAYUPUTRRA NAGAR, WARD NO.30, CHINTAMANI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶20

…APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

SRI PASHA JAN, S/O LATE MERU SAB, MAJOR BY AGE,

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:25290 MFA No. 1349 of 2022

¶26

R/AT NO.20A, SONNASHETTYHALLI LEFT SIDE, CHINTAMANI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. PIN-563 125. 2. THE CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., UNIT NO.4, 9TH FLOOR, GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX, 59TH 'C' CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, RAJAJINAGAR, 4TH M BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 010. REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI A.N KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED 21.02.2022)

¶29

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.2683/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-24), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶30

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

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

By consent of both the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal though it is slated for admission and heard learned counsel for appellants and respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶33

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:25290 MFA No. 1349 of 2022

¶34

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award in MVC No.2683/2016 passed by the learned XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-24) dated 30.10.2017, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.11,66,000/- on account of death of one V.Sandeep @ Suresh in the RTA.

¶35

The petitioners contended that on 17.02.2016 at about 03.30 pm., the deceased V.Sandeep was walking on a footpath in front of the Swastik Bar at Chikkaballapura and a private bus bearing reg.No.KA-16-B-3563 owned by the respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 came in a negligent manner and dashed against him, resulting in his death. The petitioners further contended that they are the parents and sisters of the deceased and were dependents upon the deceased, who was aged about 25 years, earning Rs.15,000/- by working as a Mason. Therefore, they sought for adequate compensation from the respondents.

¶36

On issuance of notice by the Tribunal, the respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:25290 MFA No. 1349 of 2022

¶39

respondent No.1 did not appear, as such, he was placed exparte.

¶40

The respondent No.2-Insurance Company

¶41

contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law and the petitioners be put to strict proof of the age, income and occupation of the deceased. They also contended that there was delay in filing the complaint and the liability of the respondent No.2 is subject to validity and effectiveness of the driving license, permit etc., There being the violations of the conditions of the policy, the liability be fastened upon respondent No.1.

¶42

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner No.2 was examined as PW.1 and two witnesses were examined as PWs.2 and 3 and Exs.P1 to 17 were marked. The respondent No.2 examined its official as RW.1 and another witness as RW.2. Exs.R1 to 3 were marked in evidence.

¶43

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:25290 MFA No. 1349 of 2022

¶44

After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal has

¶45

awarded a compensation of Rs.11,66,000/- under the following heads:

¶46

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Loss of dependency	10,71,000/-
Loss of love and affection	75,000/-
Transportation of body, funeral and obsequies expenses	20,000/-
TOTAL	11,66,000/-

¶47

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners have approached this Court in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation alleging that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is abysmally low and erroneous.

¶48

On issuance of notice, respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and the notice to respondent No.1 was dispensed with.

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the deceased V.Sandeep was working as a Mason and therefore, there was no valid proof in respect of the income of the deceased and as such, the notional income considered by the Tribunal is justifiable except the quantum of the notional

¶50

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25290 MFA No. 1349 of 2022

¶51

income. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal had to take notional income that would be applicable for the year 2016. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settlement of the disputes before the Lok-Adalat prescribed a notional income of Rs.9,500/-p.m. for the year 2016. In umpteen number of decisions, it has been held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and therefore, the notional income of the deceased is considered at Rs.9,500/- per month. The deceased was aged 26 years at the time of the accident and therefore, 'loss of dependency' is calculated by considering the 'future prospects' at 40% of same, which comes to Rs.3,800/-. Therefore, the multiplicand is considered at Rs.13,300/- (Rs.9,500/- + Rs.3,800/-) and the 'loss of dependency' is calculated as Rs.13,300/- X 12 X 17 X 50% = Rs.13,56,600/- by deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased as he was a bachelor.

¶52

In addition to the above compensation, the petitioners are also entitled for a sum of Rs.48,400/- under the head of 'loss of filial love and affection' and a sum of

¶53

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:25290 MFA No. 1349 of 2022

¶54

Rs.18,150/- each under the head of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'.

¶55

Thus, the petitioners are entitled for the modified

¶56

compensation under different heads as below:

¶57

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Loss of dependency	13,56,600/-
Loss of filial love and affection	48,400/-
Loss of estate and	18,150/-
Funeral expenses	18,150/-
TOTAL	14,41,300/-
Less awarded by Tribunal	11,66,000/-
Enhancement	2,75,300/-

¶58

Thus, the petitioners are entitled for enhanced

¶59

compensation of Rs.2,75,300/- with interest and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶62

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.2,75,300/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.

¶63

NC: 2023:KHC:25290 MFA No. 1349 of 2022

¶64

¶65

(iii) The respondent No.2/Insurance company is directed

¶66

to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶67

(iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77

Smt. Vijayamma v. Sri Pasha Jan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vijayamma v. Sri Pasha Jan

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

Sri Sripal P Vs S L v Souharda Pattina

Smt T Chandramma Vs the District Health Officer

The Branch Manager Vs Sri. Nanjaiah. H. P.

V.Kamala Vs N.S.Naveen Kumar

Smt Lalithamma Vs Mr K T Srinivasa

Thoushik Pasha Vs Khazar M H