Partly allowed

C N Rangaswamy v. Shanmugam

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2023MFA/6414/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two connected miscellaneous first appeals, the Karnataka High Court determined compensation payable for death caused by a motor accident. The Court revised the income assessment and calculation of the W/160 multiplier, reducing the final award slightly.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company's appeal allowed in part reducing compensation to Rs.13,30,600/-; claimant's appeal dismissed.

C N Rangaswamy Vs Shanmugam — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:46242 MFA No. 6414 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2095 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6414 OF 2019 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2095 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶4

IN MFA NO. 6414 / 2019

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

C.N. RANGASWAMY S/O NARASIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶7

SMT MANI @ MANIYAMMA W/O RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶8

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

KAVYA C R D/O C N RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS ALL ARE R/ AT CHINNANAHALLI VILLAGE BADDIKERE POST NUGGEHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASANA DIST.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI MUSHTAQ AHMED.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SHANMUGAM S/O MANIVALU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.228, RAMANNA GARDEN NEW MUSLIM COLONY

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:46242 MFA No. 6414 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2095 of 2018

¶16

BENGALURU -27

¶17

SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ISSUING OFFICE 10003 E-RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAPURA, JAIRPUR RAJASTAN-302022 REP BY ITS MANAGER

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 21.03.2023., BY SRI B.PRADEEP.,ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED29.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.162/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-XV, KUNIGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

IN 2095 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

THE MANAGER SHRI RAM GIC LTD., E-8, EPIP, RAICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA JAIPURA , RAJASTAN 302 022

¶24

NOW REP BY THE LEGAL MANAGER SRHIRAM GENERAL INS CO LTD NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S V ARCADE BELEKALHALLI MAIN ROAD OPP BANNERGHATTA ROAD, LIMB POST, BANGALORE -76

¶25

…APPELLANT

¶26

(BY SRI B.PRADEEP.,ADVOCATE)

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46242 MFA No. 6414 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2095 of 2018

¶28

AND:

¶29

C.N. RANGASWAMY S/O NARASIGOWDA @ SANNATHIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶30

SMT MANI @ MANIYAMMA W/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶31

KAVYA C R D/O C N RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS ALL ARE R/ AT CHINNANAHALLI VILLAGE BADDIKERE POST NUGGEHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DIST.- 573 211

¶32

SHANMUGAM S/O MANIVALU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.228, RAMANNA GARDEN NEW MUSLIM COLONY BENGALURU -27

¶33

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI., MUSTAQ AHMED., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3., NOTICE TO R-4 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 14.08.2019) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED29.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.162/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-XV, KUNIGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶34

THESE APPEALS, ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:46242 MFA No. 6414 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2095 of 2018

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.162/2014 dated 29.11.2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XV at Kunigal. Both the claimant as well as the insurance company are before this court. The appeal filed by the claimant is MFA.No.6414/2019 and the appeal filed

¶38

by the insurance company is MFA.No.2095/2018.

¶39

The claim petition was filed by the claimants

¶40

seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of the deceased who is the son and brother of

¶41

the claimants. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as a waiter and earning an amount of Rs.9,000/- as salary and Rs.15,000/- per month as tips. The court below as there was no evidence had considered

¶42

the salary at Rs.9,000/- and deducted 1/3^rd and granted

¶43

an amount of Rs.12,96,000/- towards loss of dependency. Towards love and affection an amount of Rs.30,000/- was granted, towards loss of estate an amount of Rs.20,000/-

¶44

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:46242 MFA No. 6414 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2095 of 2018

¶45

was granted and towards funeral expenses an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Altogether a compensation of an amount of Rs.13,61,000/- was granted by the Tribunal.

¶46

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that

¶47

when it is case of the claimant that he is earning an amount of Rs.24,000/- totally, the court below ought not to have taken Rs.9,000/- as salary. It is submitted that the court below had failed to take 40% future prospects and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was not reasonable.

¶48

Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the court below, ought to have taken Rs.8,000/- as income, as this is an accident of the year 2013. He submits that the court below had deducted 1/3^rd instead of ½ as it is case of bachelor and granted compensation which is on the higher side.

¶49

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:46242 MFA No. 6414 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2095 of 2018

¶50

Having heard the learned counsel on either

¶51

side, perused the entire material on record. According to the claimant, the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.9,000/- as salary and an amount of Rs.15,000/- as tips. Nothing was placed on record. Considering this, the court below had taken Rs.9,000/- income which is on higher side. This is accident of 2013, this court is inclined to take Rs.8,000/- as salary. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimant that they are entitled for 40% future prospects i.e., Rs.3,200/-. Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/- = Rs.11,200/-. 50% has to deducted towards the personal expenses. His contribution to the family would be Rs.5,600/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.12,09,600/- under the head of loss of dependency . Towards consortium for the both parents, this court is granting an amount of Rs.88,000/- and towards Funeral expenses this court is granting an amount of Rs.33,000/-. Altogether the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.13,30,600/-.

¶52

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:46242 MFA No. 6414 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2095 of 2018

¶53

The claimants are entitled for compensation

¶54

under the following heads:

¶55

Sl. No.	Description of Items	C	ompensation Awarded
1.	Loss of Dependency	Rs.	12,09,600/-
2.	Consortium	Rs.	88,000/-
3.	Funeral Expenes	Rs.	33,000/-
	Total	Rs.	13,30,600/-

¶56

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company i.e., MFA.No.2095/2018 is Allowed-in-part by reducing the compensation amount from an amount of Rs.13,61,000/- to Rs.13,30,600/- and the appeal filed by the Claimant i.e., MFA.No.6414/2019 is Dismissed.

¶57

(a) The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal.

¶58

(b) The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with

¶59

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:46242 MFA No. 6414 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 2095 of 2018

¶60

the certified copy of the order passed by this court forthwith without any delay.

¶61

(c) The respondent - insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶62

(d) No Costs.

¶63

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

SD/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81

C N Rangaswamy v. Shanmugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C N Rangaswamy v. Shanmugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Proprietor / Owner Vs Smt Anitha

Pramod Kumar G C Vs Managing Director/Division Controller

Ramesh Vs Sandeep

M/S Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Lingappa R

The Branch Manager Vs Basavaraja M

Sri. K Tharun Raj Vs Sri L. Satish