Partly allowed

C.V Manjunatha v. Kesavan

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2024MFA/1175/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants appealed for enhancement of compensation awarded by MACT, Tumakuru in a fatal motor accident claim. The court recalculated loss of dependency using income of Rs.29,500 with 50% future prospects, multiplier 15, and awarded consortium including parents-in-law, enhancing total compensation from Rs.50,56,000 to Rs.55,63,000 with interest at 6% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.50,56,000 to Rs.55,63,000 with 6% p.a. interest, payable by respondent-insurance company within four weeks; other tribunal terms intact.

C.V Manjunatha Vs Kesavan — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:8770 MFA No. 1175 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1175 OF 2021 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

C.V. MANJUNATHA, S/O VENKATACHAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶8

ABHISHEIK, S/O C.V. MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,

¶9

ABILASH, S/O C.V. MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SHANTHAMMA, W/O VENKATACHAR, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶12

VENKATACHAR, S/O THIMMACHAR, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDING AT BASAVESHWARA EXTENSION, 2ND CROSS, KYATHASANDRA, TUMKUR - 577 101.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. M.D.RYAKHA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:8770 MFA No. 1175 of 2021

¶17

AND:

¶18

KESAVAN, S/O SOLAI GOUNDER, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT OLD NO. 41, NEW NO. 1/64, RANIMOOKKANUR VILLAGE AND POST, PUPPIREDDIPATTI TALUK, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU - 635 303.

¶19

THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DO-CO, BENGALURU, ISSUED OFFICE: TAMILNADU,

¶20

SERVICE ADDRESS: THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BEHIND KRISHNA THEATER, M.G. ROAD, TUMAKUR - 572 101.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 16.02.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.898/2018 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, 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

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:8770 MFA No. 1175 of 2021

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging

¶28

the judgment and award dated 13.02.2020 passed by VII Additional District Judge and MACT, Tumakuru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.898/2018. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellants seek enhancement of compensation.

¶29

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

¶30

their status before the tribunal.

¶31

Brief facts of the case are as under;

¶32

That on 23.06.2018 at about 7 p.m., one

¶33

Smt.Yashoda was traveling on two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-06-W-7729. At that time, a lorry bearing registration No.TN-29-BZ-1030 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Smt.Yashoda, due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, she succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:8770 MFA No. 1175 of 2021

¶36

3.1 On service of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent and he was placed ex parte . Respondent No.2Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition including age, avocation and income, so also, the dependency and entitlement of respondent Nos.4 and 5 for compensation. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶37

3.2 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.

¶38

3.3 In order to substantiate the issues and to

¶39

establish the case, claimant No.1 got examined himself as PW.1 and two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P22. On the other hand, respondent did not adduce their evidence, but marked document as Ex.R1.

¶40

3.4 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and

¶41

documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:8770 MFA No. 1175 of 2021

¶43

counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.50,56,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation and respondent No.2-Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation.

¶44

3.5 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶45

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding inadequate compensation, which calls for interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶46

Per contra , learned counsel for respondentInsurance Company contends that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:8770 MFA No. 1175 of 2021

¶48

Having heard the learned counsel for appellantsclaimants and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, perused the impugned judgment and award, it is seen that the claimants have produced the documents as Exs.P1 to P22, out of which, Exs.P1 to P8 are the Police records, which clearly depict the filing of FIR and laying of charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle and same has not been challenged or controverted. Therefore, the tribunal rightly attributed the negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle. Exs.P9 to P22 are the copies of Aadhar card, salary certificates and other documents.

¶49

Now coming to the aspect age, avocation, income and dependency, it is stated that the age of the claimant was 37 years at the time of accident. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at ‘15’, which does not call for interference. The deceased Yashoda was working as an employee and earning a salary of Rs.29,700/- per month as per Ex.P10. The tribunal has taken the income of

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:8770 MFA No. 1175 of 2021

¶51

Rs.27,700/- per month. On perusal of the salary slips, it is seen that the gross salary is Rs.29,700/- per month, whereas the professional tax of Rs.200/- is required to be deducted. Therefore, the income would have to be taken as Rs.29,500/- for assessment. The tribunal has rightly taken 50% towards future prospects and deducted 1/3^rd towards personal and living expenses, which do not call for interference and the same are retained. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.53,10,000/- (Rs.29,500/- + 50% = Rs.44,250/- - 1/3^rd = Rs.29,500/- x 12 x 15) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.49,86,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶52

The tribunal awarded Rs.70,000/towards

¶53

conventional heads.

¶54

Sri A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company contends that respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are the parents-in-law would not be entitled for compensation towards loss of consortium. I am afraid that the said contention can not be accepted as the Hon'ble

¶55

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:8770 MFA No. 1175 of 2021

¶56

Apex Court while awarding consortium has taken into consideration loss of love and affection. Even though they may be the parents-in-law, they have lost their daughterin-law, hence, they would be entitled to compensation towards loss of love and affection. Hence, respondent Nos.4 and 5 each entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-. In the present case, each claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 . Therefore, under the head of loss of consortium, Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 5) is awarded along with 10% escalation towards one block period, which would be Rs.2,20,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- + 10%).

¶57

The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all, Rs.30,000/-, which do not call for interference. However, as per the aforesaid decision, 10% escalation for one block

¶58

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:8770 MFA No. 1175 of 2021

¶59

period on the same is awarded under this head, which

¶60

would come to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 10%).

¶61

In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.55,63,000/- as

¶62

against Rs.50,56,000/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶63

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	53,10,000-00
Loss of consortium	2,20,000-00
Loss of estate and funeral expenses	33,000-00
TOTAL	55,63,000-00

¶64

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶67

ii) The judgment and award dated 13.02.2020 passed in MVC.No.898/2018 by VII Additional District Judge and MACT, Tumakuru, is modified;

¶68

iii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.55,63,000/- as against Rs.50,56,000/-;

¶69

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. by the

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:8770 MFA No. 1175 of 2021

¶72

respondent-Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶73

v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellants-claimants upon proper verification;

¶74

vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact.

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

CPN CT: BHK

C.V Manjunatha v. Kesavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.V Manjunatha v. Kesavan

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

Madhu a B Vs Ganghu a B

Y v Gundu Rao Vs a v Srinivasamurthy

Sri Chandrashekar Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Kokilavani Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Neelakantaiah Vs Mr Tajammul Pasha

Smt Raziya Sultana Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.