Partly allowed

Abdul Jabbar v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2023MFA/7644/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First Appeal against Tribunal award in motor accident case. High Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 10.76 Lakhs to Rs. 15.71 Lakhs based on corrected income calculation, granting amounts for loss of dependency, consortium, funeral, legal expenses, and conveyance.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced from Rs. 10,76,000/- to Rs. 15,71,400/- with 6% interest.

Abdul Jabbar Vs National Insurance… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:30603 MFA No. 7644 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7644 OF 2017 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ABDUL JABBAR S/O LATE M. ABBAS, AGED 44 YEARS, R/AT BANGALE GUDDE HOUSE, MANGALURU TALUK

¶8

ZEENATH W/O ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 40 YEARS R/AT BANGALE GUDDE HOUSE, MANGALURU TALUK

¶9

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

¶10

NOWRIN D/O ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 20 YEARS, R/AT BANGALE GUDDE HOUSE, MANGALURU TALUK

¶11

MAHAMMED NIHAZ S/O ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 14 YESRS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER ABDUL JABBAR R/AT BANGALE GUDDE HOUSE, MANGALURU TALUK

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B R.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:30603 MFA No. 7644 of 2017

¶15

AND:

¶16

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., II FLOOR, BHARATH BUILDING, HAMPANKATTA,MANGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶17

B. CHITHARANJAN RAI S/O B.NARAYANA RAI, ADULT, ASHRAYA PADAV POST, BONDANTHILA VILLAGE, MANGALURU

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.B.A. RAMAKRISHNA .,ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSEND WITH)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1107/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, & MACT, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This is an appeal filed by the claimants aggrieved by the award passed in MVC No.1107/2016 dated 13.02.2017 on the file of the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge & MACT, D.K, Mangaluru. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:30603 MFA No. 7644 of 2017

¶25

the accident on 04.05.2016 and the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.10,76,600/-.

¶26

This is the case of the claimant on 04.05.2016, the deceased was proceeding as pillion rider on the motor cycle from Addooru towards Kaikamba at 3.30 p.m. near Punikodi, Addooru village. The driver of the tipper lorry came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the motor cycle, as a result, the deceased and the rider of the motor cycle fell down from the motor cycle and sustained multiple grievous injuries. The deceased-pillion rider succumbed to death due to injuries. They spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to shift the dead body of the deceased and for other expenses. The deceased was working as writer/supervisor in M.S. Shamyana in Bajpe, Mangalore and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. In support of the same, they have examined PW-2. The court below has held that the accident has happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and when it comes to compensation, the court has examined the employer of the tipper driver and salary certificate was marked and there was no other supportive evidence. The court below has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-, half

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:30603 MFA No. 7644 of 2017

¶29

of the amount was deduced towards personal expenses of deceased, remaining half of the amount i.e., an amount of Rs.4,500/- p.m is taken as income and applied the multiplier 18, granted an amount of Rs.9,72,000/- towards of loss of dependency, granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and obsequies expenses, granted an amount of Rs.4,000/towards conveyance charges and under the other heads an amount of Rs.60,000/- was granted and all together granted an amount of Rs.10,76,000/- as compensation.

¶30

Learned counsel for the claimants submits that deceased was aged 18 years and there are enough records to show that deceased was earning an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month. The court below ought not to have taken an amount of Rs.9,000/- as monthly income.

¶31

Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that except evidence of PW-2 and the salary certificate, there are no other documents and the court below has rightly considered a sum of Rs.9,000/- as income. The facts of the case are that a boy of 18 years has lost his life and employer of the tipper lorry is also examined. Considering the evidence, this court is inclined to take an amount of Rs.9,500/- as income

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:30603 MFA No. 7644 of 2017

¶33

of the deceased. The court below has not granted any amount towards future prospectus which he is entitled at 40% of an amount of Rs.9,500/- i.e., a sum of Rs.3,800/- and his income is a sum of Rs.13,300/-. As he is a bachelor, 50% of his income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, which comes to a sum of Rs.6,650/-. Towards loss of dependency his contribution to the family is Rs.6,650/- x 12 x multiplier 18 which comes to Rs.14,36,400/-. Towards parental consortium , the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.44,000/- x 2= Rs.88,000/-. Towards funeral expenses the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.33,000/- .

¶34

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. MEKALA -vs- M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER¹ the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. Court below had granted an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards conveyance charges, this court does not interfere with the same. Altogether the claimants are entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.15,71,400/-. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed-in-part

¶35

1 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:30603 MFA No. 7644 of 2017

¶37

by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.10,76,000/- to an amount of Rs.15,71,400/-.

¶38

The claimants are entitled for compensation under the following heads:

¶39

Sl.No.	Description of Items		Amount
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs.	14,36,400/-
2.	Consortium (Rs.44,000/- x 2)	Rs.	88,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	Rs.	33,000/-
4.	Legal expenses	Rs.	10,000/-
5.	Conveyance Charges	Rs.	4,000/-
	Total	Rs.	15,71,400/-

¶40

(a) Accordingly, this appeal is allowed-in-part enhancing the compensation amount from an amount of Rs.10,76,000/- to a sum of Rs.15,71,400/-.

¶41

(b) The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization.

¶42

(c) Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the tribunal within a period of 8 (Eight) weeks. On such deposit

¶43

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:30603 MFA No. 7644 of 2017

¶44

the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing the security.

¶45

(d) Registry is directed to return the trial court records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forth with without any delay.

¶46

(e) No Costs

¶47

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/JUDGE

¶49

Abdul Jabbar v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Jabbar v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

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

Kishore R @ Kishore Raj R Vs Royal Sundaram Alliance

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sudindra K N @ Kota Sudhindra Somayaji

Sri K M Girish Vs the Regional Manager

Sri Jayan S/O Late Raju Vs Arun Kumar

Sri. Devendra Vs Sri. K.S. Sudheer Kumar

Kumari Ravikala Poojari Vs Mohammad Rafik