Partly allowed

Sri M v. Thomas Since Deceased by His Lrs v Mr B K Isubu

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2024MFA/3254/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the miscellaneous first appeal in part, enhancing the compensation awarded by the MACT for loss of dependency and other heads under a motor accident claim petition. The court increased the total award and directed the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,33,350/- directed to be paid by the insurance company along with 6% interest from the date of claim petition till realization.

Sri M v Thomas Since Deceased by His Lrs Vs Mr B K… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9232 MFA No. 3254 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3254 OF 2013 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI M.V.THOMAS

¶10

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S,

¶11

SMT. ELIAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, W/O LATE M.V.THOMAS,

¶12

SMT. MARY @ MARIAMMA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D/O LATE M.V.THOMAS,

¶13

SMT. SUSAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, D/O LATE M.V.THOMAS,

¶14

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. MINI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, D/O LATE M.V.THOMAS,

¶16

SRI. SANTHOSH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE M.V.THOMAS,

¶17

SMT. SAVITHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, D/O LATE M.V.THOMAS

¶18

SMT. SMITHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, D/O LATE M.V.THOMAS.

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9232 MFA No. 3254 of 2013

¶20

ALL ARE RESIDING AT BARIKALA HOUSE, NOOJIBALTHILA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. 574 201.

¶21

…APPELLANTS

¶22

( BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT., ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

MR.B.K.ISUBU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O ABOOBAKKAR, RESIDING AT BALADHA BAILU HOUSE, KOKKADA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K-574 214.

¶25

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE: RAMBHAVAN COMPLEX, KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE-575 003. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶26

MR. V.VIJAYAN, MAJOR, S/O K.R.PODIYAN, MITTHODY VILLAGE, NOOJIBALTHILA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K-574 201.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(NOTICE TO R1 AND R3-DISPENSED WITH; BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAMA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶29

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1356/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, MANGALORE.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:9232 MFA No. 3254 of 2013

¶32

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

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Sri.Pundikai Ishwara Bhat., learned counsel for the appellants has appeared in person.

¶35

Sri.Anup., learned counsel on behalf of

¶36

Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao., for respondent No.2 has appeared in person.

¶37

Though the appeal is listed today for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, it is heard finally.

¶38

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.

¶39

It is the case of the claimant that on the 03^rd day of October 2004 at about 8:45 a.m., he was a pillion on the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-21-H-8158 and Mr.Vijayan was riding the motorcycle on Kadaba to Kallugudda Road at Kudatmureel, Kutrupaddy village, Puttur Taluk. At that time the driver of the Jeep No.KA-19-N-6619 drove the same in a rash and negligent matter and hit him and Vijayan who was

¶40

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9232 MFA No. 3254 of 2013

¶41

riding the motorcycle. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to City Hospital, Mangalore, Kshema Hospital Deralakatte. Hence, he filed claim petition seeking compensation. During the pendency of the petition, he succumbed to injuries on 29.07.2008. Hence, his legal representatives were brought on record.

¶42

In response to the notice, respondents 1 and 3 remained absent. Hence, they were placed ex-parte . Respondent No.2 Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed written statement. Among other grounds prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The fourth respondent appeared through their counsel but neither filed written statement nor participated in the proceedings.

¶43

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:20.06.2012 allowed the claim petition in part. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.2 have urged several contentions.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:9232 MFA No. 3254 of 2013

¶47

Learned counsel for the appellants in presenting his arguments vehemently contended that the Tribunal has erred in awarding meagre compensation. He argued by saying that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement. Counsel therefore, submits that the appeal may be allowed.

¶48

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 justified the Judgment and award of the Tribunal. He submits that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The Claimants appeal is one for enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment. The grounds urged in the present appeal are mainly relating to the meager compensation awarded under different heads by the Tribunal.

¶52

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9232 MFA No. 3254 of 2013

¶53

It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,16,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixteen Thousand only) towards Loss of dependency. It is contended that the deceased was working as a Security guard and he was earning Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per month. However, there is no proof of income for the same. In the absence of any proof of income, the chart prepared by the Legal Service Authority must be taken into consideration.

¶54

As per the chart, the salary of the deceased must be taken as Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) per month. The age of the deceased was 56 years as on the date of accident, hence the multiplier 9 is to be adopted. Hence, the amount towards the loss of dependency is as under:

¶55

CALCULATION OF LOSS OF DEPENDENCY FUTURE PROSPECTUS:

¶56

It is taken into consideration at 10% as per chart because the age of deceased is between 50 to 60. 4,000 X 10/100 = 400 4,000 + 400 = 4,400 4,400 divided by 1/3 = 1,466.66 4,400 - 1,466.66 = 2,933.34

¶57

2933.34 x 12 x 9 =3,16,800/-

¶58

Rs.3,16,800/-

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:9232 MFA No. 3254 of 2013

¶61

This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.15,000/(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards Loss of estate expenses as against Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal.

¶62

This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards loss of consortium as against Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards loss of love and affection as against Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only, Rs.15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards funeral and obsequies as against Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) towards medicine and hospital charges as against Rs.38,450/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty only) and Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards attendant and conveyance charges as against Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal.

¶63

Accordingly, this Court re-determines the

¶64

compensation as under:-

¶65

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9232 MFA No. 3254 of 2013

¶66

1.	Loss of dependency	3,16,800	Rs.3,16,800/-
2.	Loss of estate	10,000 +5,000	Rs.15,000/-
3.	Loss of consortium	10,000+ 10,000	Rs.20,000/-
4.	Loss of love and affection	10,000+10,000	Rs.20,000/-
5.	Funeral and obsequies	10,000 +5,000	Rs.15,000/-
6.	Medicine and Hospital Charges	38,450 +1,550	Rs.40,000/-
7.	Attendant and Conveyance charges	9,000 +1,000	Rs.10,000/-
		Total:	Rs.4,36,800/-
	(Less) Compensation	awarded by the Tribunal:	- Rs.3,03,450/-
	Enhanced compensa	tion awarded by this Court:	Rs.1,33,350/-

¶67

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant time, this Court deems it appropriate to award interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of claim petition till realization.

¶68

9. Hence, the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

The Miscellaneous First appeal is allowed in part and the Judgment

¶71

dated:20.06.2012 passed by the Court of MACT,

¶72

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:9232 MFA No. 3254 of 2013

¶74

Mangalore in M.V.C No.1356/2005 is modified to the extent stated hereinabove.

¶75

The claimants are entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,33,350/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶76

The second respondent - Insurance Company shall 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.

¶77

The Registry to draw the modified award

¶78

accordingly.

¶79

Office is directed to transmit the original

¶80

records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶81

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

¶82

Sd/JUDGE

Sri M v. Thomas Since Deceased by His Lrs v Mr B K Isubu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M v. Thomas Since Deceased by His Lrs v Mr B K Isubu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sparkleized Vs Mrs Uma Malpani

Shaik Yousuff Vs Nanjappa

Smt. Vinod S. Patil Vs Sri. Manjunath Singh

Sri Lokantha Vs Sri Sampangi

B a Dinesh Vs B a Ravikumar

C S Harish Vs Sriram General