Partly allowed

Smt Madhuri Pandey v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2023MFA/8103/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation awarded to the claimants in a motor vehicle accident case involving a deceased production incharge, raising the total from Rs.14.55 lakhs to Rs.23.42 lakhs upon calculating future prospects and family contributions.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs.23,42,000/- with 6% interest. Respondent insurer to deposit amount within 8 weeks.

Smt Madhuri Pandey Vs National Insurance… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40214 MFA No. 8103 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8103 OF 2017 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.MADHURI PANDEY W/O LATE SATYENDRA PANDEY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶9

VIKAS PANDEY

¶10

S/O LATE SATYENDRA PANDEY AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS

¶11

MAYANK PANDEY S/O LATE SATYENDRA PANDEY AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS

¶12

INDRASAN PANDEY @ INDRASAN S/O LATE KANTHI PANDEY @ KANTI AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶13

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

¶14

SITA PANDEY@ SITA W/O INDRASAN PANDEY @ INDRASAN AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶15

ALL ARE R/AT NO.6/5A, JLN SARANI, KONNAGARA M, KONNAGARA, HOOGLI WEST, WEST BENGAL-712 235

¶16

… APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY MS.NITYA V., ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:40214 MFA No. 8103 of 2017

¶20

AND:

¶21

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD JEEVAN BHIMA NAGAR BUSINESS CENTER, NO.432, 2^ND CROSS, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, HAL 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU -560 075 BY ITS MANAGER

¶22

THAMANNE GOWDA S/O SIDDEE GOWDA, MAJOR, R/A NO.77, BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK

¶23

MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430

¶24

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.O.MAHESH.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 21.01.2023)

¶25

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED12.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1210/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, & XXXIV ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-7, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCCH-7), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This is an Appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation aggrieved by the award

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:40214 MFA No. 8103 of 2017

¶31

passed in M.V.C.No.1210/2016 dated 12.07.2017 on the file of the IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.

¶32

The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.90,00,000/- wherein the Tribunal had awarded compensation of an amount of Rs.14,55,120/-. It is the case of the claimants on 23.12.2015 at about 7.00 p.m. the deceased was proceeding as pillion rider in a Motor cycle from Harohalli Industrial Area and the rider of the said bike riding the same very slowly and cautiously. At the same time, the driver of the tractor has driven the same from Bangalore to Kanakapura, drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

¶33

motor cycle. Due to the impact, due to injuries the deceased succumbed to death. The deceased was working as a production incharge at Stovekraft Pvt.Ltd., at Harohalli Industrial Area, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagar District and earning an amount of Rs.25,000/-. The court below has observed that though the claimant has filed the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:40214 MFA No. 8103 of 2017

¶36

documents in support of the income, no one is examined, the court below had taken an amount of Rs.11,000/- as income and granted the compensation of an amount of Rs.13,20,120/- towards loss of dependency, Towards of funeral expenses an amount of Rs.30,000/- was granted. Towards Consortium an amount of Rs.80,000/- was granted and an amount of Rs.25,000/- was granted towards loss of love and affection. Altogether a compensation of Rs.14,55,120/- was granted by the MACT.

¶37

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that

¶38

when they have placed the evidence in support of the salary that is Ex.P-26 and Ex.P-27, the appointment letter dated 21.11.2014 and letter dated 01.12.2013 issued by

¶39

the Stovekraft Company Pvt. Ltd., the court below had considered only Rs.11,000/- as income. It is submitted that no future prospects were granted, further under the other heads also the amounts that were granted by the Tribunal were not reasonable.

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40214 MFA No. 8103 of 2017

¶41

On the other hand learned counsel appearing

¶42

for the insurance company submits that without there being any evidence, when the accident had taken place in the year 2016 taking income of an amount of Rs.11,000/is on the higher side. He submits that the Court below ought not to have taken an amount of Rs.11,000/- as income. Further it is submitted that no grounds were made out for enhancement of the compensation.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsels on either

¶44

side, perused the entire material on record. In this case, though it is claimed that deceased was earning an amount of Rs.25,000/- as no evidence was let in, the court below

¶45

had taken an amount of Rs.11,000/- as income. The insurance company has not preferred any appeal against

¶46

this award. Hence this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said finding and inclined to consider the salary at an amount of Rs.11,000/-, his age is about 38 years, future prospects at 40% comes to an amount of

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:40214 MFA No. 8103 of 2017

¶49

Rs.4,400/-. Totally it is an amount of Rs.15,400/- and as there are five claimants 1/4^th has to be deducted towards his personal expenses that is a sum of Rs.3,850/-. His contribution to the family would be an amount of Rs.11,550/- x 12 x Multiplier 15 it comes to an amount of Rs.20,79,000/- is granted towards loss of dependency. Towards Consortium for Wife, two children and parents Rs.44,000/- x 5 comes to an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- Towards funeral expenses they are entitled for an amount of Rs.33,000/-.

¶50

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

¶51

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 . Altogether the claimant is entitled for an amount Rs.23,42,000/- at 6% interest.

¶52

1 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶53

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:40214 MFA No. 8103 of 2017

¶54

The claimants are entitled for compensation

¶55

under the following heads:

¶56

Sl. No.	Description of Items	C	ompensation Awarded
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs.	20,79,000/-
2.	Consortium	Rs.	2,20,000/-
3.	Funeral Expenses	Rs.	33,000/-
4.	Legal Expenses	Rs.	10,000/-
	Total	Rs.	23,42,000/-

¶57

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is Allowed-in-part by enhancing the compensation amount from an amount of Rs.14,55,120/- to Rs.23,42,000/-.

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:40214 MFA No. 8103 of 2017

¶62

(c) The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified copy of the order passed by this court forthwith without any delay.

¶63

(d) No Costs.

¶64

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

SD/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 116

Smt Madhuri Pandey v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Madhuri Pandey v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Ravish Kumar Vs Mr. Prabhakar

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs D Raju

Lokesh Vs H N Byrappa

Smt. S. Parvathy Vs Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

Harish U M @ Harisha Kumar Vs Shekara C T

Sri. Papanna @ Puttaswamy Vs Sri. G N Ramesh