Partly allowed

Mahalingamma v. Siddaramaiah

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2023MFA/273/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court held that the Tribunal's compensation award was inadequate. It allowed the appeal partly, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 4,04,700/- by Rs. 79,700/- considering the deceased's age and revised notional income, and directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs. 79,700/- awarded. Claimant directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 6% p.a. interest.

Mahalingamma Vs Siddaramaiah — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:24883 MFA No. 273 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 273 OF 2020 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. MAHALINGAMMA, W/O LATE MAHALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE, MATHIGHATTA POST, KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT. B.N MANJULA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAGARAJA.R.C, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

MR. SIDDARAMAIAH, S/O NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O MOOGANAYAKANA KOTE, NITTUR POST, GUBBI TALUK - 572 222.

¶14

MR. CHANDRASHEKAR M C, S/O CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO. 05, LAGGERE, BYRAVESHWARANAGARA, BEHIND BRINDAVANA APARTMENT, ANDANAPPA HOUSE, BENGALURU - 58.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:24883 MFA No. 273 of 2020

¶17

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, XII, (672300) MAYUR COMPLEX, KAIADB MAIN ROAD, PEENYA, BENGALURU-560 013. REPT. BY BRANCH MANAGER.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. Y ARUNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 30.03.2022.)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 104/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

By consent of both the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal though it is slated for admission and heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.3.

¶24

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 02.03.2019 in M.V.C No. 104/2013, passed by the Tribunal appellant is before this Court in appeal.

¶25

The petitioner is claimant in MVC.No.104/2013 who

¶26

is the widow of deceased Mahalingappa, who died on

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:24883 MFA No. 273 of 2020

¶28

15.02.2013. She contended that while her husband Mahalingappa was traveling as a pillion rider, of M.C Reg. KA.18.S.9042 on 15.02.2013, Tata Indica a car bearing registration No.KA-09/A-8032 driven by respondent No.1, collided with the motorcycle and her husband suffered injuries and later, he was admitted to the hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. It was contended that the deceased was a skilled agriculturist earning Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the same to the family. It was contended that the accident being the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the car driver, the owner and insurer of the car are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

¶29

On issuance of notice, the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed objections.

¶30

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law and that the vehicle was insured with the respondent No.3 and therefore, the liability be fastened upon the Insurance Company.

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24883 MFA No. 273 of 2020

¶32

Respondent No.3-Insurance Company also raised similar objections and contended that there were violations of the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

The Tribunal on the basis of the above pleadings framed appropriate issues and the matter was clubbed with MVC.No.103/2013 and common evidence was led. The petitioners in both the petitions were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P19 were marked in evidence. Respondent No.3 was examined its official as RW.1 and Exs.R1 and 2 were marked.

¶34

After hearing the arguments by both the side, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- to the petitioner under different head as below:

¶35

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Loss of dependency	2,40,000/-
Loss of consortium	40,000/-
Loss of love and affection	25,000/-
Funeral expenses	15,000/-
Transportation of dead body	5,000/-
TOTAL	3,25,000/-

¶36

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the

¶37

petitioner is before this Court in appeal.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:24883 MFA No. 273 of 2020

¶40

On issuance of notice by this Court, respondent No.3-Insurance Company has appeared through its counsel and notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 was dispensed with.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is abysmally low and meager and the Tribunal erred in holding that the age of the deceased is more than 65 years, even though the family pedigree and other documents suggested that he was aged less than 65 years. She also contended that the notional income of the petitioner should have been considered at a higher rate and the compensation be reassessed.

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3Insurance Company has defended the judgment of the Tribunal contending that the compensation awarded is adequate, just and reasonable.

¶43

On a careful perusal of the available records, it is evident that the Tribunal has discussed about the age of the deceased at para 17 of the judgment. It is relevant to note that Voters ID of the deceased was produced before the Tribunal which showed the age of the deceased to be about 70 years.

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:24883 MFA No. 273 of 2020

¶45

However, the petitioner contended that the deceased was aged less than 65 years at the time of the accident. When the self created document in the form of the family pedigree is produced as per Ex.P17 and when there is a statutory document like Ex.P18, the Voters ID card is produced, obviously, the Tribunal is justified in relying upon Ex.P18. No other cogent evidence was placed before the Tribunal regarding the age of the deceased. Hence, no fault can be found in respect of the age of the deceased and it is above 65 years and therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be '5'.

¶46

So far as the notional income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the same at Rs.6,000/per month. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal had to take notional income that would be applicable for the year 2013. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settlement of the disputes before the Lok-Adalat prescribe a notional income of Rs.8,000/-p.m. for the year 2013. 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

¶47

and therefore, the notional income of the deceased is considered at Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, the 'loss of

¶48

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:24883 MFA No. 273 of 2020

¶49

dependency' is calculated as Rs.8,000/- X 12 X 5 X 2/3 = Rs.3,20,000/-.

¶50

In addition to the above compensation, the petitioner who is the wife of the deceased is also entitled for the compensation under the head of 'loss of consortium', 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of estate' as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS¹ . Having considered the escalation of 10% at every three years, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.48,400/- under the head of 'loss of consortium', a sum of Rs.18,150/- each under the head of 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of estate'.

¶51

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below:

¶52

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Loss of dependency	3,20,000/-
Loss of consortium	48,400/-
Funeral expenses	18,150/-
Loss of estate	18,150/-
TOTAL	4,04,700/-
Less awarded by Tribunal	3,25,000/-
Enhancement	79,700/-

¶53

1 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:24883 MFA No. 273 of 2020

¶56

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced

¶57

compensation of Rs.79,700/- with interest and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶60

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.79,700/- 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.

¶61

(iii) The respondent No.3/Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶62

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

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

NR/-

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74

Mahalingamma v. Siddaramaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahalingamma v. Siddaramaiah

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

Mr. v Nagaraj Vs Mr. Dinesh Koushik

Sri Ramesh M S Vs Sri Papegowda

Sri Prasanna Vs Boregowda

Smt.Mangamma Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited

The Managing Director B.M.T.C. Vs Sri B v Nithinkumar

Sri. S. Ravindrakumar Vs Sri. K. Parameshwara Reddy