Partly allowed

Smt Shobha Hegde v. Sri Kiran M

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2024MFA/4044/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an appeal arising from a motor accident compensation case. The Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 17,51,584, covering loss of dependency, consortium, and funeral expenses, while disallowing awards for loss of estate and love and affection. Interest was excluded due to delayed filing.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 17,51,584; interest excluded for 205 days due to delay condonation; insurer directed to deposit amount within eight weeks.

Smt Shobha Hegde Vs Sri Kiran M — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:12092 MFA No. 4044 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4044 OF 2019

¶7

(MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT SHOBHA HEGDE

¶10

W/O LATE LATE MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶11

MINOR JANAKI H.M. S/O LATE LATE MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS

¶12

MINOR VINAY H.M. S/O LATE LATE MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MINOR YOGESH H M.

¶15

S/O LATE LATE MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS

¶16

SMT.MAYAMMA W/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶17

RANGAPPA S/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶18

APPELLANT NO.2,3 & 4 ARE MINOR, REP. BY THEIR GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1 SMT. SHOBHA HEGDE, ALL ARE R/AT S.T.ROAD, SURAHONNE VILLGE, HONNALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:12092 MFA No. 4044 of 2019

¶20

¶21

…APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

SRI KIRAN M S/O MANJUNATHA M AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O VEERABHADRAKERI, NYAMATHI POST,HONNALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶25

BHARATHI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD 1ST FLOOR, CITY TOWERS, MUNICIPAL ROAD, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP.,ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DTD:22.11.23 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED07.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.337/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI SITTING AT KUNDAPURA, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶29

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

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Aggrieved by the award dated 07.07.2018 passed in MVC

¶32

No.337/2015 by the MACT, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura),

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12092 MFA No. 4044 of 2019

¶34

Kundapura, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶35

The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. The claimants are the wife, parents and three children of the deceased. It is the case of the claimants that on 17.02.2015 at about 5.45 a.m., the deceased was travelling in the Mahindra Bolero vehicle, the said vehicle was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, he lost control of the said vehicle and the vehicle rolled on the road. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in the hospital for first aid. Thereafter he was shifted to Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore and on 17.02.2015 during the period of treatment he succumbed to the injuries. According to the claimants the deceased was working as a coolie and was earning an amount of Rs.24,000/-. The court below had taken the income as Rs.9,000/- p.m., and granted the compensation as per the table given below:

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:12092 MFA No. 4044 of 2019

¶38

	Heads		C	ompensation Awarded
1.	Loss of Dependency	:	Rs.	11,34,000/-
2.	Loss of Estate	:	Rs.	15,000/-
3.	Love of Love & Affection	:	Rs.	40,000/-
4.	Loss of Consortium	:	Rs.	40,000/-
5.	Transportation, Funeral Expenses	:	Rs.	15,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	12,44,000/-

¶39

The court below has held that the vehicle is insured

¶40

by the insurance company and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the court below had taken the income on the lower side and also not awarded future prospects. Further, the compensation awarded under other conventional heads is also not just and reasonable.

¶41

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / insurance company submits that the court below without there being any evidence had taken the income at Rs.9,000/- and granted the compensation on the higher side. It is submitted that no grounds are made out for enhancement of the compensation.

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12092 MFA No. 4044 of 2019

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. In this case according to the claimants the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.24,000/- per month, but no evidence was adduced in this regard. The court below had taken Rs.9,000/- p.m., in the considered opinion of this Court the court below had rightly taken the notional of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- for the accident which has occurred in the year 2015. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel the claimants, the claimants are entitled for 25% future prospects, which would come to Rs.2,250/-, which is Rs.11,250/-. As there are six claimants 1/4^th has to be deducted towards personal expenses, which comes to Rs.2,812/-. Then the contribution to the family is Rs.8,438/-. The claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.14,17,584/- (Rs.8,438 x 12 x 14) under the head of loss of dependent . There are six claimants i.e., wife, parents and three children, hence under the head of Consortium the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.2,88,000/- . The claimants are awarded an amount of Rs.36,000/- towards

¶44

Funeral Expenses .

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:12092 MFA No. 4044 of 2019

¶46

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

¶47

Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M.

¶48

MALATHI AND ANOTHER¹ , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses .

¶49

The claimant is therefore, entitled to the

¶50

compensation under the following heads:

¶51

Description		By Tribunal	By this Court
Loss of Dependency	Rs.	11,34,000/-	14,17,584/-
Loss of Estate	Rs.	15,000/-	0
Loss of Love & Affection	Rs.	40,000/-	0
Loss of Consortium	Rs.	40,000/-	2,88,000/-
Transportation & Funeral Expenses	Rs.	15,000/-	36,000/-
Legal Expenses	Rs.	0	10,000/-
Total	Rs.	12,44,000/-	17,51,584/-
Enhancement		Rs.5,07,	584/-

¶52

8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed ,

¶53

enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.12,44,000/-

¶54

to Rs.17,51,584/-.

¶55

1 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶56

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:12092 MFA No. 4044 of 2019

¶57

i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶58

ii) This court by an order dated 22.11.2023 has condoned delay of 205 days, on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest. Hence, the claimant will not be entitled for interest for the period of 205 days.

¶59

iii) The apportionment made by the court below with regard to the compensation shall hold good.

¶60

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.

¶61

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:12092 MFA No. 4044 of 2019

¶62

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.

¶63

vi) No costs.

¶64

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶65

SD/JUDGE

¶66

JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Smt Shobha Hegde v. Sri Kiran M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shobha Hegde v. Sri Kiran M

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

Rakshith H S Vs Nafeej Ahamad

Sri Jagadeesha Vs Nagalakshmi K L

The Manager Vs Smt. Lakshmamma

Jarin Vs Rajesh

Bharathi Vs Shaikh Nasruddin

Sannamma @ Chennamma Vs Sri. Ritesh