Allowed

Shriram Gic Ltd. v. Sri. Shameemthaz

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024MFA/4072/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in a motor accident claim. While accepting the base compensation for dependency, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, the Court enhanced the award to include Rs. 40,000 for each parent under loss of filial consortium. Interest was reduced to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and award of Claims Tribunal modified; compensation enhanced to Rs. 16,22,000/-; interest @ 6% p.a. awarded for deposit period; no interest on delayed compensation due to appeal.

Shriram Gic Ltd. Vs Sri. Shameemthaz — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39304 MFA No. 4072 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1983 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4072 OF 2018 (MV)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1983 OF 2019 (MV)

¶10

IN MFA No. 4072/2018 BETWEEN:

¶11

SHRIRAM GIC LTD NO.S/5, 2ND FLOOR MUNIRISH CHAMBER INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU NOW REPTD BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER SHRIRAM GIC LTD NO.3/5, III FLOOR, S V ARCADE BILEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD OFF B G ROAD II M B POST BENGALURU-560076

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. SHAMEEMTHAZ W/O SAIFULLA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶16

SRI SAIFULLA S/O LATE BABASAB AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶17

BABY KOUSER D/O SAIFULLA

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39304 MFA No. 4072 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1983 of 2019

¶19

AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶20

MOHAMMED JAKAULLA S/O SAIFULLA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

¶21

MOHAMMED MUSHRAF S/O SAIFULLA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1 ALL ARE R/O EDIGA MOHALLA GUNDLUPET PATANA NOW R/AT C/O RAJU, BELAGOLA VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TQ, MANDYA DISTICT.

¶22

SRI BELLAPPA S/O LATE MADAPPA MAJOR R/AT SHANIDANAPURA VILLAGE BUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJA NAGAR DISTRICT.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K M.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4: R5 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1: NOTICE TO R6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1594/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.15,42,000/WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL.

¶26

IN MFA NO. 1983/2019

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SHAMEEMTHAZ W/O SAIFULLA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39304 MFA No. 4072 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1983 of 2019

¶30

SAIFULLA S/O LATE BABUSAB AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶31

KUMARI KOUSHER D/O SAIFULLA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶32

MAHAMMED JAKAULLA S/O SAIFULLA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶33

MAHAMMED MANSHRAF S/O SAIFULLA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1 ALL ARE R/AT EDIGA MOHALLA GUNDLUPET PATNA NOW R/AT C/O RAJU, BELAGOLA VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571405

¶34

...APPELLANTS

¶35

(BY SRI. SANATH KUMARA K M.,ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

BELLAPPA S/O LATE MADAPPA MAJOR R/AT SHINDANAPURA VILLAGE GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571313.

¶38

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER SRI RAMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., NO.S/5, 2ND FLOOR MUNIRISH CHAMBER INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560001

¶39

...RESPONDENTS

¶40

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39304 MFA No. 4072 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1983 of 2019

¶41

(BY SRI.K.S. VISHWANATHA., ADVOCATE FOR R1: SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶42

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1594/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION

¶43

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶45

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶46

MFA No.4072/2018 is filed by the Insurance Company, whereas MFA No.1983/2019 is filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short, ‘the Act’) being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 19.03.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Srirangapatna (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in MVC No.1594/2016. Since the challenge is to the same judgment, both the appeals are clubbed together, heard and common judgment is being passed.

¶47

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39304 MFA No. 4072 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1983 of 2019

¶48

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 05.10.2016 at about 4.30 p.m., when the deceased Mahammed Yasin was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-10/S-0118 in frfont of Mukthar hotel, Gundlupete town, Chamarajanagara, at that time, a tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA10/T-6789.6790 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶49

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

¶50

Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and

¶51

2 appeared through counsel and filed separate written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶52

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded

¶53

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39304 MFA No. 4072 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1983 of 2019

¶54

the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove the case, examined claimant No.2 as PW-1, and another witness as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of respondents, no witness was examined but got exhibited document namely Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.15,42,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.

¶55

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company raised the following contentions:

¶56

i) Firstly, at the time of the accident the deceased was a non-earning member of the family. Under the

¶57

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39304 MFA No. 4072 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1983 of 2019

¶58

circumstances, the notional income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- is on the higher side.

¶59

ii) Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for addition of ‘future prospects’ but the Tribunal erred in considering addition of future prospects.

¶60

iii) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

¶61

iv) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS –V- VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS DISPOSED OF ON 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, sought to allow the appeal.

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39304 MFA No. 4072 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1983 of 2019

¶63

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants raised the following counter-contentions:

¶64

i) Firstly, at the time of the accident the deceased had

¶65

completed his ITI course and he has also entered into an agreement to start an engineering workshop on a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- per month and had paid Rs.4,00,000/as advance. The monthly income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- is on the lower side.

¶66

ii) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], the claimants are entitled to addition of future prospects.

¶67

iii) Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’.

¶68

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39304 MFA No. 4072 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1983 of 2019

¶69

iv) Fourthly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782] , each of the claimants is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’. Hence, sought to allow the appeal.

¶70

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal and the original records.

¶71

It is not in dispute that Mahammed Yasin died in the road traffic accident occurred on 05.10.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶72

At the time of the accident, as per the SSLC marks card produced by the claimant as per Ex.P7, he was aged about 20 years, he has completed his ITI course and he has also entered into an agreement to start engineering workshop, on a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- and also paid an advance of Rs.4,00,000/-. He has also obtained a

¶73

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:39304 MFA No. 4072 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1983 of 2019

¶74

trade licence from the Gram pancahayt. Considering his educational qualification and documents produced by the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of dependency' at Rs.15,12,000/- is just and reasonable.

¶75

In addition, the Tribunal has also awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’.

¶76

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’

¶77

(supra), claimant Nos.1 and 2, parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’.

¶78

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

¶79

11 -

¶80

NC: 2024:KHC:39304 MFA No. 4072 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1983 of 2019

¶81

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	1512,000
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of Filial consortium	80,000
Total	16,22,000

¶82

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶83

ORDER

¶84

(i) The appeals are disposed of.

¶85

(ii) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶86

(iii) The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.16,22,000/- as against Rs.15,42,000/- awarded by the

¶87

Tribunal.

¶88

(iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from

¶89

the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of

¶90

12 -

¶91

NC: 2024:KHC:39304 MFA No. 4072 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 1983 of 2019

¶92

realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of

¶93

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶94

(v) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount shall be made in accordance with the terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶95

(vi) In view of the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period of 254 days in filing the appeal.

¶96

(vii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶97

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶98

CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Shriram Gic Ltd. v. Sri. Shameemthaz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram Gic Ltd. v. Sri. Shameemthaz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Rajesha Vs Sri. Sharath H.D.

Sri Chikkarudraiah R Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Mani. a Vs M/S. Hariharan Logistics Parthiban

S. Shivakumara Swamy Vs G. N. Shivakumar

Sri Srinivas K T Vs Sri Manjunath R K

Sri. Eshwara N Gonda Vs Sri. Suresh Bhajanthri