Partly allowed

Smt. Nenavath Kamala Bhai @ v. Reliance General Insurance

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2024MFA/1985/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a miscellaneous first appeal seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation. The bench recalculated damages based on notional income and future prospects, increasing the total award from Rs. 10,94,200 to Rs. 14,02,000, to be apportioned between surviving claimants.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 14,02,000 (including interest at 6%) to be equally apportioned between the two surviving claimants; deposit ordered within eight weeks.

Smt. Nenavath Kamala Bhai @ Vs Reliance General… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9200 MFA No. 1985 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1985 OF 2017

¶6

(MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. NENAVATH KAMALA BHAI @ KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, W/O LATE NENAVATH VENKATESH NAIK @ VENKATESH NAIK RESIDENT OF ST COLONY MADDULACHERUVU THANDA MADDULACHERUVU KANGANA PALLE, ANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH STATE

¶9

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

KUMARI MAHESWARI BAI N @ MAHESHWARI AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS D/O LATE NENAVATH VENKATESH NAIK @ VENKATESH NAIK RESIDENT OF ST COLONY MADDULACHERUVU THANDA MADDULACHERUVU KANGANA PALLE, ANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH STATE MINOR RERPESENTED BY HER MOTHER

¶11

SMT. TIPPAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O LATE RAMA NAIK @ RAMAPPA R/AT DEVDRAPURAM PALLURU, KALYANDURGAM ANTHAPUR DISTRICT A.P.STATE

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:9200 MFA No. 1985 of 2017

¶15

(BY SRI. RANGANATHA R.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE NO.5/111 AND 6/112, 1ST FLOOR UNNATI ARCADE, 1ST BLOCK DR RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGARA, BANGALORE-560 010

¶18

MR.MADHU T S/O THIMMA REDDY NO.6, 19TH CROSS, BANDAPPA GARDEN,MATHYALA NAGARA, BANGALORE-560 054

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.H.C. BETSUR.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DTD 23.11.2017 NOTICE TO R2 D/W)

¶21

MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED29.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3224/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND XX ACMM AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.3224/2015

¶25

dated 29.12.2016 passed by the XXII ASCJ & XX ACMM

¶26

and MACT, Bengaluru, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:9200 MFA No. 1985 of 2017

¶29

The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the accident that took place on 21.07.2015. According to the claimant, the claimants are the mother, daughter and the wife. According to them, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 38 years and was working as Mastry and earning an amount of Rs.1,000/-

¶30

per day and an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. The court below has held that the accident had taken place because of rash and negligent driving of driver of the opposite vehicle. When it comes to the compensation,

¶31

the court below as there was no evidence with regard to the income had taken income at Rs.7,000/- per month. As per the Aadhar card the court has taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and taken the future prospects at 30% and granted the compensation as per the table given below:

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:9200 MFA No. 1985 of 2017

¶34

	Heads		C	ompensation Awarded
1.	Loss of dependency	:	Rs.	10,19,200/-
2.	Loss of Consortium	:	Rs.	40,000/-
3.	Loss of love and affection	:	Rs.	20,000/-
4.	Transportation charges	:	Rs.	5,000/-
5.	Funeral Expenses	:	Rs.	10,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	10,94,200/-

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶36

when it is the case of the claimant that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month, the court below had taken income at Rs.7,000/- without any basis. Accident had taken place in the year 2015 and the amount

¶37

that was taken as income was on the lower side. It is submitted that even under the other conventional heads also the amount that was granted by the court below is not a just and reasonable compensation.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent-insurance

¶39

company submits that the court below had rightly taken the income at an amount of Rs.7,000/-, he submits that

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9200 MFA No. 1985 of 2017

¶41

instead of taking 25% as future prospects court has taken 30% which is on the higher side. Learned counsel submits that already the amount that was granted by the tribunal is on higher side and no grounds are made for enhancement of the compensation.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel on either side,

¶43

perused the entire material on record. According to the claimant, the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month, but there is no evidence on record. This court considering the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional

¶44

income is taken at Rs.9,000/-. He is aged 45 years as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the insurance company, he is entitled for future prospects at 25%. Rs.9,000/x 25% is Rs.2,250/i.e., it is Rs.11,250/- and as there are three dependants 1/3^rd

¶45

has to be deducted towards personal expenses i.e., Rs.3,750/-. Then his contribution to the family would be Rs.7,500/-. Under the head of loss of dependency ,

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:9200 MFA No. 1985 of 2017

¶48

this court is granting an amount of Rs.12,60,000/- (Rs.7,500/- x 12 x 14). Towards loss of consortium this court is granting an amount of Rs.96,000/- and towards funeral expenses an amount of Rs.36,000/- is granted.

¶49

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 claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses .

¶50

Altogether the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.14,02,000/-.

¶51

The claimants are therefore, entitled for the

¶52

compensation under the following heads:

¶53

	Heads		Co A	mpensation warded by Tribunal	Compensation Awarded by this Court
1.	Loss of dependency	:	Rs.	10,19,200/-	12,60,000/-
2.	Loss of Consortium	:	Rs.	40,000/-	96,000/-
3.	Loss of love and affection	:	Rs.	20,000/-	00/-

¶54

1 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:9200 MFA No. 1985 of 2017

¶57

4.	Transportation charges	:	Rs.	5,000/-	00/-
5.	Funeral Expenses	:	Rs.	10,000/-	36,000/-
6.	Legal Expenses	:	Rs.	00/-	10,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	10,94,200/-	14,02,000/-
	Enhancement	:	Rs.	3,07,	800/-

¶58

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed , enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.10,94,200/- to Rs.14,02,000/-. It is submitted that the mother of the deceased is no more. Hence, the compensation amount shall be equally apportioned

¶59

between the remaining two claimants.

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) The appeal is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation amount Rs.10,94,200/to Rs.14,02,000/-. The enhanced amount is Rs.3,07,800/-.

¶62

ii) As the mother of the deceased is dead, the compensation amount shall be equally apportioned between the remaining two claimants.

¶63

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:9200 MFA No. 1985 of 2017

¶65

iii) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶66

iv) The respondent - insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶67

v) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶68

v) No costs.

¶69

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶70

closed.

¶71

SD/JUDGE

¶72

TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Smt. Nenavath Kamala Bhai @ v. Reliance General Insurance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nenavath Kamala Bhai @ v. Reliance General Insurance

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

Dr Elroy Saldanha Vs Dr Deepti Celestine Dsouza

Smt. Jayamma Vs Sri. Srinivas

Hamza Sajid Ahmed Vs C John George

Bhavya Mohan Vs Abhinav Shrivastava

Smt. Ramya T v Vs Sru Koushik Rajaram @ Koushik R Nijagal

G Somashekar Vs G Harish