Allowed

Chaithra v. Sri. M.Kumar

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2024MFA/2685/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor vehicle accident appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the claimants as the Tribunal's amount was deemed meager. The court recalculated compensation based on the Legal Service Authority chart since income proof was lacking, granting an additional Rs. 2,86,052/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.2,86,052/- along with 6% per annum interest from the date of claim petition till realization.

Chaithra Vs Sri. M.Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:10581 MFA No. 2685 of 2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2685 OF 2015(MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. CHAITHRA W/O NAVEEN, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶9

SRI. KIRAN KUMAR S/O NITHYANANDA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, KORENAHALLY, BOTH ARE R/AT GULALLI VILLAGE DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI. VEDHU KUMAR.Y.S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. M.KUMAR S/O M.K.MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶15

THE MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HASSAN.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:22.03.2016; BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10581 MFA No. 2685 of 2015

¶19

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.500/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, CHANNARAYAPATNA.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Sri.B.C.Shivannegowda., learned counsel for respondent No.2 has appeared in person.

¶23

Though the appeal is listed today for admission, it is heard finally.

¶24

The claimants have preferred the captioned appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respective parties have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records with utmost care.

¶26

The point that would arise for consideration is whether the Claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation?

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:10581 MFA No. 2685 of 2015

¶29

The Claimants' appeal is one for enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment. The grounds urged in the present appeal is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager.

¶30

It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,24,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Twenty Four Thousand only) towards Loss of dependency. It is contended that the deceased was doing agriculture, milk vending and coconut merchant and was earning Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per month. However, there is no proof of income. In the absence of any proof of income, the chart prepared by the Legal Service Authority must be taken into consideration.

¶31

As per the chart, the salary of the deceased must be taken as Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred only) per month, if the accident is occurred in the year 2011. The age of the deceased was fifty years as on the date of accident, hence the multiplier 13 is to be adopted. Hence, the amount towards the loss of dependency is as under:

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:10581 MFA No. 2685 of 2015

¶34

CALCULATION OF LOSS OF DEPENDENCY

¶35

Future prospects:

¶36

It is taken into consideration at 25% as per chart because the age of deceased is between 40 to 50 years.

¶37

6,500 X 25% = 1,625 6,500 + 1,625 = 8,125 8,125 divided by 3 = 2,708 8,125 - 2,708 = 5,417 5,417 x 12 x 13 = 8,45,052/Rs.8,45,025/-

¶38

In the present case, the deceased left behind his married daughter and son. Hence, they are entitled to compensation under the head "Loss of love and affection" as under:

¶39

40,000 X 2 = Rs.80,000/-

¶40

This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.30,000/(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards Transportation, Funeral and Obsequies as against Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only).

¶41

Accordingly, this Court re-determines the

¶42

compensation as under:-

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10581 MFA No. 2685 of 2015

¶44

1.	Towards loss of dependency	8,45,025	Rs.8,45,025/-
2.	Towards loss of love and affection	40,000 X 2	Rs.80,000/-
3.	Transportation, Funeral and Obsequies	25,000 + 5,000	Rs.30,000/-
		Total:	Rs.9,55,025/-
	(Less) Compensatio	n awarded by the Tribunal:	- Rs.6,69,000/-
	Enhanced compensatio	n awarded by this Court:	Rs.2,86,052/-

¶45

Hence, the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The Miscellaneous First appeal is allowed and the Judgment dated:24.07.2014 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Channarayapatna in M.V.C No.500/2012 is modified to the extent stated hereinabove.

¶48

The claimants are entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,86,052/- (Rupees Two Lakh Eighty Six Thousand and Fifty Two only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:10581 MFA No. 2685 of 2015

¶51

The Insurance Company is directed to

¶52

deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with 6% interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this Judgment.

¶53

Needless to observe that the claimants

¶54

are not entitled for the interest for delayed period.

¶55

The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly.

¶56

Office is directed to transmit the original

¶57

records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶58

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

Chaithra v. Sri. M.Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaithra v. Sri. M.Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Pavithra Vs Nadeem Pasha

Jilani @ Jilan Vs C.L. Indu Shekar

Sri Bibijan Vs Sri. M. Manjunath Rao

Sri S Manjunath Vs Sri M Ramakrishnappa

Appaiah Vs Swami Jogi

Harisha Vs the Managing Director