Allowed

Smt. Pushpavathi v. Mohamed Meraj Hasan

Karnataka HC26 Sept 2023MFA/4997/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Vehicles Appeal, the High Court of Karnataka enhanced the compensation awarded to the death of a deceased son by notional calculation of income and loss of dependency. The court increased the award and directed payment entirely to the son.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,21,396 with 6% interest payable to the appellant son; modified decree drawn.

Smt. Pushpavathi Vs Mohamed Meraj Hasan — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:35148 MFA No. 4997 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4997 OF 2022 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PUSHPAVATHI, W/O LATE H.E. MALLIKARNJUNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶8

VIVEK H. M, S/O LATE H. E. MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶9

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HALKURIKE VILLAGE, HONNAVALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK - 563 125.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

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

¶12

(BY SMT. SUSHMITHA G, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MOHAMED MERAJ HASAN, S/O KHURSHID HALAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT BANTI AUTO, ELECTRICALS ROAD, KUREKUPPA VILLAGE POST, SANDUR TALUK, BELLARI DISTRICT - 583 101.

¶15

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:35148 MFA No. 4997 of 2022

¶18

JAYADEVA COMPLEX, B.H. ROAD, TUMAKURU CITY - 572 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶19

3. ESHWARAIAH,

¶20

S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS.

¶21

4. RAMAKKA,

¶22

W/O ESHWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.

¶23

RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 RESIDING AT HALKURIKE VILLAGE, HONNAVALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK - 563 125.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. K. NAGARAJAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2022 NOTICE TO R1, R3 AND R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.02.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.172/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:35148 MFA No. 4997 of 2022

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 24.02.2022 passed in MVC No.172/2020 by the Court of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioners therein have preferred this appeal.

¶32

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

¶33

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶34

On 15.08.2019, when the deceased Mallikarjuna was

¶35

standing by the side of the road attending nature call near Old Pump House of Halkurike Village, Honnavali Hobli, a Lorry bearing registration No.KA-21-A-0328, being driven in a rash and negligent manner and duly insured with respondent No.2 - Insurance company, came and dashed against the said Mallikarjuna, because of which he died. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.16,16,104/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Not satisfied by the same, the petitioners who are wife, son and parents of the deceased have preferred this appeal.

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:35148 MFA No. 4997 of 2022

¶37

The accident occurred in the year 2019. 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 Lok-Adalat chart which will be Rs.14,000/per month. The deceased was aged 47 years at the time of the accident. Hence, a multiplier of '13' is adopted as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr [2009(6) SCC 121]. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- per month, 25% has to be added to his income towards future prospects as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] . Further, the deceased, who had four dependants at the time of his death 1/4^th of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, on the count of 'loss of dependency', the petitioners would be entitled to a sum of Rs.20,47,500/(14,000 x 12 x 13+ 25% future prospects x deduction(3/4)).

¶38

Petitioners are also entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:35148 MFA No. 4997 of 2022

¶40

Petitioners are all entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium and thus together are entitled to Rs.1,60,000/- under this head.

¶41

Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.22,37,500/- as against Rs.16,16,104/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6,21,396/-.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the enhanced compensation may be awarded in entirety to petitioner No.2 (son of the deceased). Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has no objection for the same. 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. Hence, the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The appeal is allowed in part;

¶45

(ii) The petitioners are entitled to an enhanced compensating of Rs.6,21,396/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition before the Tribunal till realization

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:35148 MFA No. 4997 of 2022

¶48

which shall be over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal;

¶49

(iii) The entire enhanced compensation with interest thereon shall be paid to petitioner No.2.

¶50

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

¶51

(v) Office to draw modified decree accordingly;

¶52

SD/JUDGE

¶53

MH/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31 CT: BHK

Smt. Pushpavathi v. Mohamed Meraj Hasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pushpavathi v. Mohamed Meraj Hasan

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

Mangalamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Pavithra Vs the State of Karnataka

Anilkumar H S @ Manu Vs v C Pradeep

Mamatha B S Vs the State of Karnatka

V R Siddeshwara Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Renuka R Vs the State of Karnataka