Partly allowed

Smt Doddamma v. the Executive Officer

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2023MFA/882/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a miscellaneous first appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The High Court modified the compensation by re-assessing loss of dependency and awarding amounts for loss of consortium and funeral expenses, enhancing the total compensation significantly. It also ruled interest should not be granted for the specific delayed period of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 20,01,064/- granted for loss of dependency, consortium, estate, and funeral expenses; interest denied for 463 days.

Smt Doddamma Vs the Executive Officer — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:21208 MFA No. 882 of 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 882 OF 2016 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. DODDAMMA W/O LATE VENKATASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶10

JANAKI D/O LATE VENKATASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT

¶12

PUDUR VILLAGE, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶13

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR R V., ADVOCATE)

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI MALE MAHADESHWARA TEMPLE, M.M. HILLS, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶18

THE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT (KGID),

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:21208 MFA No. 882 of 2016

¶20

VEHICLE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, KGID BUILDING, NEAR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-01.

¶21

……..RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SHIVANANDA, AGA)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED23.7.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.45/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, KOLLEGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the Judgment and Award dated 23.07.2014 passed in MVC.No.45/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Kollegal, for seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶28

On 17.04.2013 at about 1.00 p.m., on M.M.Hills,

¶29

Cowdally road near Santhekane village, the deceased Mukunda was travelling in the Tata Pick up vehicle bearing

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:21208 MFA No. 882 of 2016

¶31

No.KA-10-G-406 along with two others, bringing gas cylinder from Hanur Bharath Gas Agency. At about 1.00 p.m., the driver of the said vehicle took the vehicle to the right side of the mud road and took turn towards main road in a rash and negligent manner and the vehicle toppled to the left side of the road. In the said accident, Mukunda sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of the accident and he was unmarried. He was working as driver and cleaner in Tata Pick up vehicle belonging to the 1^st respondent and he was earning a sum of Rs.11,000/- p.m.

¶32

Claimant Nos.1 and 2, who are the mother and blind sister of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.11,31,600/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Tribunal held

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:21208 MFA No. 882 of 2016

¶34

respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

¶36

The deceased was working as a driver under the employment of Respondent No.1 and the nature of job of the deceased is permanent in nature being a salaried person. Ex.P8 is the salary certificate which shows the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.12,288/-.

¶37

In the present case, the loss of dependency is taken by the Tribunal by considering the income of Rs.10,800/- only and without making addition of 50% income, granted a compensation which is on lesser side. In this regard, the Tribunal has committed an error. Therefore, the same is rectified. The deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, 50% income is liable to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Since the deceased was a permanent employee, therefore, as per

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:21208 MFA No. 882 of 2016

¶39

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 50% of income is to be added. Therefore, the loss of dependency is hereby re-assessed and quantified as follows:

¶40

Rs.12,288/- + Rs.6,144/- (50% of Rs.12,288/-)= Rs.18,432/Rs.18,432/- x 50/100 x 12 x 17 = Rs.18,80,064/-.

¶41

Thus, awarded a sum of Rs.18,80,064/- towards loss of dependency.

¶42

Further, the Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation under the head loss of consortium and other heads. The appellants are mother and unmarried blind sister. Therefore, both are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under head loss of consortium with 10% escalation. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.88,000/(Rs.80,000/- + Rs.8,000/-) is awarded towards loss of consortium. Further, a compensation of Rs.14,000/- with 10% escalation is awarded under the head loss of estate, which comes to Rs.15,400/- and Rs.15,000/- awarded under the head funeral and transportation of dead body with 10% escalation, which comes to Rs.16,500/-. Thus,

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:21208 MFA No. 882 of 2016

¶44

in all, appellants/claimants are entitled for total

¶45

compensation of Rs.19,99,964/- as under:

¶46

1	Loss of dependency	Rs.18,80,064/-
2	Loss of consortium	Rs.88,000/-
3	Transportation of dead body & funeral expenses	Rs.16,500/-
4.	Loss of Estate	Rs.16,500/-
	Total	Rs.20,01,064/-

¶47

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶50

ii. The judgment and award dated 23.07.2014 passed in MVC.No.45/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Kollegal, is modified to the above extent.

¶51

iii. The appellants are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.8,69,464/(Rs.20,01,064/- - Rs.11,31,600/-), along

¶52

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC:21208 MFA No. 882 of 2016

¶54

with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶55

iv. The appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period of 463 days.

¶56

v. The other observations and findings of the Tribunal are kept in tact.

¶57

vi. No order as to costs.

¶58

vii. Draw award accordingly.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

BNV

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Smt Doddamma v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Doddamma v. the Executive Officer

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

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

Shyamala v. Nayak @ Latha Nayak Vs Usman

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri N P Santhosh @ Santhosh

Venkatesha Vs Ajaysharma

Bhoomika Singh G Vs Sri G MD Azamathulla