Partly allowed

Smt.Hemavathi v. Mr.Azam

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2023MFA/3873/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, enhancing compensation for the deceased's heirs. Using notional income, statutory multipliers, and precedent, the court ordered an additional ₹5,04,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,04,000 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization to be paid by the Respondent Insurance Company.

Smt.Hemavathi Vs Mr.Azam — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:33016 MFA No. 3873 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3873 OF 2021 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. HEMAVATHI W/O. LATE MANJUNATHA B.N. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶9

KUM. SWAROOPA B.N. D/O. MANJUNATHA B.N. AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS

¶10

MAST. SHARATH B.M. S/O. LATE MANJUNATHA B.N. AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS

¶11

SRI NAGAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT. GAVIYAMMA W/O. NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶14

MR. LOKESH S/O. NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶15

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.59 BIRALINGESHWARA BADAVANE BALAGURU VILLAGE HOSADURGA TALUK.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI SATHISHA T., ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:33016 MFA No. 3873 of 2021

¶19

AND:

¶20

MR. AZAM S/O. NAZEERT SAB AGED WAS IN MAJOR ARASU MAKKALA BEEDI KOTE, KADUR TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548.

¶21

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 5TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN NEAR HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 002.

¶22

SRI THIPPESH V.T. S/O. THIMMAPPA NO.143C, VAKKALAGERE VILLAGE KADUR TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI Y.K. SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R.2; NOTICE TO R.1 AND R.3 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 31.03.2022)

¶25

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.12.2019 IN MVC NO.1009/2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & MACT AT BENGALURU AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AWARD AMOUNT.

¶26

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:33016 MFA No. 3873 of 2021

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 19.12.2019 passed in MVC No.1009/2018 by the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioners therein have preferred this appeal.

¶30

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶31

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶32

On 16.01.2018, at about 9.45 p.m., the deceased Manjunatha B.N. was traveling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-19-EG-1147 on Vakkalagere road, Belaguru. When he reached near water tank between M.KodihalliChinakeriahalli village, he met with an accident with a Bolero Car bearing registration No.KA-18-B-5423, because of which the said Manjunatha B.N. expired. The accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the Car, which was duly insured with respondent no.2/Insurance Company. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.22,46,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:33016 MFA No. 3873 of 2021

¶35

same. Not satisfied by the same, petitioner nos.1 to 5, who are wife, children and parents of the deceased, have preferred this appeal.

¶36

The accident occurred in the year 2018. The petitioners have not established the income of the deceased before the Tribunal. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to fix his income notionally as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in consultation with Insurance Companies which will be Rs.12,500/- per month. The deceased was aged 31 years at the time of the accident. Hence, a multiplier of 16 is adopted as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA & ORS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORP.& ANR reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 . As the deceased had five dependents, 1/4th of his income needs to be deducted towards his personal expenses. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. PRANAY SETHI reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 40% of the income of the deceased has to be added towards future prospects. Thus, on the count of loss of dependency, petitioner nos.1 to 5 are entitled to a sum of Rs.25,20,000/- (Rs.12,500 X 12 X 16 X 3/4 + 40%).

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:33016 MFA No. 3873 of 2021

¶38

Petitioner nos.1 to 5 are also entitled to a sum of

¶39

Rs.30,000/- towards 'loss of estate and funeral expenses'.

¶40

Petitioner nos.1 to 5 are all entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards 'loss of consortium' and thus together are entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- under this head.

¶41

Thus, petitioner nos.1 to 5 are together entitled to a sum of Rs.27,50,000/and an enhanced compensation of Rs.5,04,000/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.27,50,000/- minus Rs.22,46,000/-). Further, given the bank rate of interest, I deem it appropriate to award interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till realization.

¶42

Hence, the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The appeal is allowed in part;

¶45

(ii) Petitioner nos.1 to 5 are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.5,04,000/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition before the Tribunal till realization which shall be over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal;

¶46

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:33016 MFA No. 3873 of 2021

¶47

(iii) Respondent No.2/Insurance company shall pay the enhanced compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

¶48

(iv) The enhanced amount shall be apportioned equally between petitioner nos.1 to 5;

¶49

(v) Office to draw modified award accordingly.

¶50

SD/JUDGE

¶51

hkh.

Smt.Hemavathi v. Mr.Azam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Hemavathi v. Mr.Azam

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

Sri G Vinodkumar Vs the Director

Sri Shivaprasad R Vs Sri H P Devakumar

Smt. Sameema Vs Gurupura Agricultural Co. Operative Society Ltd.

Devaraju Vs Girish N T

Rajegowda Vs Rangegowda

Amzad Pasha Vs the Manager