Dismissed

Shyamala v. Nayak @ Latha Nayak v Usman

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2023MFA/6513/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by survivors challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident case. The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the Tribunal's award based on a prior Division Bench order that found the parameters used to assess compensation to be correct. No enhancement of compensation was permitted.

What did the court decide?

No enhancement of compensation; the Tribunal's award of Rs. 18,32,200/- is confirmed.

Shyamala v. Nayak @ Latha Nayak Vs Usman — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:20789 MFA No. 6513 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6513 OF 2015 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHYAMALA V. NAYAK @ LATHA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O LATE G. VASANTH NAYAK R/O OPP.ACHARYA MEDICAL SHOP, MAIN ROAD, GANGOLLI, KUNDAPURA.

¶9

G ACHALA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS D/O LATE G VASANTH NAYAK R/O OPP.ACHARYA MEDICAL SHOP, MAIN ROAD, GANGOLLI, KUNDAPURA.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI. SHUBHALEKHA S. FOR SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA

¶12

SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

USMAN MAJOR, S/O SHEKHABBA, R/O GOUSIYA MANZIL, BADAKERE POST & VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK-575201.

¶16

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. SHREE LAXMI NARASIMHA COMPLEX, NH-66, KUNDAPURA-575201, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 – VC; R1 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 24.01.2018)

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:20789 MFA No. 6513 of 2015

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.457/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor

¶24

Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ for brevity) by the appellants-claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 03.06.2015, passed in MVC No.457/2013, on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) seeking enhancement.

¶25

Brief facts:

¶26

On 03.02.2013 at about 2.30 p.m. the deceased G. Vasantha Nayak was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-20-R-992 from Mullikatte side towards Gangolli side and after reaching Nayakwadi Gopal Nayak's house in

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:20789 MFA No. 6513 of 2015

¶28

Gujjadi village, Kundapura taluk, a motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-20-EA-5612 belonging to respondent No.1 was driven by its rider in rash and negligent manner from Mullikatte side towards Gangolli side and dashed to motor cycle, due to said impact G. Vasantha Nayak sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital.

¶29

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellant under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition in part, and awarded compensation of Rs.18,32,200/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal held respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶30

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 – insurance company and perused the materials on record.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:20789 MFA No. 6513 of 2015

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

¶34

the quantum of compensation awarded under various heads is on lesser side. Therefore, seeks for enhancement of the compensation.

¶35

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent – insurance company submits that the Tribunal is justified in passing the impugned judgment and award and there is no ground for enhancement. That the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal is sufficient and adequate.

¶36

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as follows:

¶37

Loss of dependency		Rs.	17,47,200/-
Consortium		Rs.	25,000/-
Love and affection		Rs.	20,000/-
Loss of estate		Rs.	20,000/-
Conveyance and	funeral	Rs.	20,000/-
expenses
Total		Rs.	18,32,200/-

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:20789 MFA No. 6513 of 2015

¶39

The Tribunal has taken the monthly income as Rs.12,000/- per month and adopted the multiplier of '14' since the deceased was 33 years old and added 30% of income towards loss of future prospects and appellants were granted compensation of Rs.17,47,200/- under the head 'loss of dependency'.

¶40

The Insurance Company has challenged the quantum as well as liability imposed on it before the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A. No.6168/2015. The Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A. No.6168/2015 at para 14 observed regarding quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and held that the compensation awarded to appellants - claimants is just and proper as all the parameters are taken correctly. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court has already confirmed the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal. It is found that all the parameters taken by the Tribunal while assessing the compensation are found to be correct. Therefore, there is no good ground available for enhancement of the

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:20789 MFA No. 6513 of 2015

¶42

compensation. Even in the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.12,000/-

¶43

per month, whereas, as per Karnataka State Legal Services Authority chart, the monthly income ought to have been taken at Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, the monthly income taken by the Tribunal is also found to be correct. Therefore, there is no good ground available for enhancement of compensation.

¶44

Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. The appeal is dismissed .

¶47

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 03.06.2015, passed in MVC No.457/2013, on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura, is hereby confirmed.

¶48

iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:20789 MFA No. 6513 of 2015

¶51

of the order passed by this Court forthwith without

¶52

any delay.

¶53

iv. No order as to costs.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

HNM

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Shyamala v. Nayak @ Latha Nayak v Usman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamala v. Nayak @ Latha Nayak v Usman

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 a T Suresh Vs Sri Mushtaq Azam Khan

Sri Manjappa Vs Smt Nethramma

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dr G S Gopalakrishna

Smt. N.P. Padma W/O S. Manjunath Vs Smt. Kavitha M. W/O Mohan Velu V.M.

Sri Chandrashekar S/O B. Rajanna Vs Sri K S Narayanappa

Mr Prabhakar Vs the Regional Manager