Partly allowed

Sri. M. Narayanappa v. M. Manjunath

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2024MFA/3946/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court enhanced compensation of Rs.17,73,200 to Rs.22,69,400 awarded for death in a road accident. Court applied appropriate notional income and multipliers per Supreme Court precedents and directed respondent to deposit the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.17,73,200 to Rs.22,69,400; interest at 6% per annum directed; respondent ordered to deposit within eight weeks.

Sri. M. Narayanappa Vs M. Manjunath — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37762 MFA No. 3946 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3946 OF 2022 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. M. NARAYANAPPA, S/O MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶8

SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O M. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶9

BOTH ARE R/AT THAMATAMAKANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 129. …APPELLANTS

¶10

(BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

M. MANJUNATH, S/O MUNIRAJAPPA, MAJOR BY AGE, R/AT HASIGALA VILLAGE AND POST, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. 2. M/S. CHOLAMANGALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., UNIT NO.4, 9TH FLOOR, LEVEL NO.6 GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX 59TH "C" CROSS, 4TH "M" BLOCK,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:37762 MFA No. 3946 of 2022

¶16

RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED , UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.2268/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IX C/c. XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU, (SCCH-15) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard Sri. Vasanthappa learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri. Sunilkumar.K learned counsel who represents Sri.H.S.Lingaraj, learned counsel on record for respondent No.2.

¶24

Dissatisfied with the amount that is awarded as

¶25

compensation, the parents of the deceased Murali T.N are before this Court seeking enhancement. They challenge

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:37762 MFA No. 3946 of 2022

¶28

the order that is rendered by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in M.V.C. No.2268/2020 dated 02.03.2022.

¶29

Undisputedly, the deceased Murali T. N

¶30

(hereinafter be referred to as 'deceased' for brevity) died in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2020. Projecting a version that the deceased as a Proprietor of M/s Macho Men's Saloon was earning Rs.40,000/- per month, the appellants claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in total. However, the tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.17,73,200/- as compensation.

¶31

Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellants Sri. Vasanthappa contends that the tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.11,000/per month which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel states that the deceased was aged about 22 years by the date of accident and he was earning Rs.40,000/- per month, as a Barber by running a saloon. Learned counsel also states

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37762 MFA No. 3946 of 2022

¶33

that the accident occurred in the year 2020 and for the relevant period the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.14,500/- per month and atleast the said figure should have been considered by the tribunal.

¶34

Sri.Sunilkumar.K learned counsel representing respondent No.2 did not raise any objection for taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.14,500/- per month as sought for. Also the figure suggested is highly justifiable.

¶35

As the deceased died at the age of 22 years, 40% of the actual earnings are required to be added towards future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Also as the deceased died as Bachelor, 50% of the earnings are required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses which the deceased would have incured for himself had he been alive, as per the decision of the

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37762 MFA No. 3946 of 2022

¶37

Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009 SAR (Civ) 592. Further, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '18'. Thus, applying the aforementioned parameters the amount to be awarded under the head loss of dependency

¶38

is calculated as under:-

¶39

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Notional monthly income	14,500-00
Annual income	1,74,000-00
Add 40% towards future prospects	2,43,600-00
Deduct 50% towards	1,21,800-00
personal and living
expenses
Apply appropriate multiplier '18'	21,92,400-00

¶40

Thus, the compensation which the appellants are

¶41

entitled to under the head loss of dependency is Rs.21,92,400/-. Together with the said amount, the appellants are entitled to Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.16,500/towards loss of estate and Rs.44,000/- towards loss of filial consortium.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37762 MFA No. 3946 of 2022

¶43

Thus, the total compensation which the appellants

¶44

are entitled to is as under:-

¶45

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	21,92,400-00
Funeral expenses	16,500-00
Loss of estate	16,500-00
Loss of filial consortium	44,000-00
Total	22,69,400-00

¶46

The tribunal through the impugned order awarded

¶47

a sum of Rs.17,73,200/- as compensation. However, the justifiable sum which the appellants are entitled to is Rs.22,69,400/-.

¶48

Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the

¶49

following:-

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶52

ii. The compensation that is awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through orders in M.V.C. No.2268/2020 dated 02.03.2022 is enhanced from Rs.17,73,200/- to Rs.22,69,400/-.

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37762 MFA No. 3946 of 2022

¶54

iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶55

iv. The 2^nd respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶56

v. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares.

¶57

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶58

VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35, CT: BHK

Sri. M. Narayanappa v. M. Manjunath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M. Narayanappa v. M. Manjunath

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

Puttanarasamma Vs Manju K

Dinesh M Vs Mr Jagadeesh

Thanfi Kader. M. P. Vs H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited

Sri C Adisheshaiah Chalasani Vs Smt Krishnamma

Sri Boregowda Vs Sri Srinivasa H B

Suhas N Vs Rakesh H R