Partly allowed

Sri Jagadeesha v. Nagalakshmi K L

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2024MFA/4419/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhancement of motor accident death compensation awarded by the Bangalore MACT for a 2017 lorry collision. The Court raised notional income to Rs.11,000, applied 40% future prospects, deducted one-third instead of half, revised conventional heads citing V. Mekala, and enhanced compensation from Rs.9,10,000 to Rs.21,13,264 with 6% interest.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Jagadeesha Vs Nagalakshmi K L — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11797 MFA No. 4419 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4419 OF 2018(MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. JAGADEESHA, (DUMB & DEAF) AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶8

PAVITHRA K.G., D/O JAGADEESHA, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.

¶9

DASAGOWDA, S/O CHIKKABETTAYYA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.

¶10

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. CHIKKAMMA, W/O. DASAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶12

SINCE 2^ND APPELLANT IS A MINOR, REP. BY HER GRANDFATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN DASAGOWDA.

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDING AT KOMBINA KOPPALU, THUBINAKERE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA - 571 445.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11797 MFA No. 4419 of 2018

¶17

AND:

¶18

NAGALAKSHMI K.L., W/O MURALIDHAR J., NO.275, RAMOHALLI CROSS, KUMBALGODU, MYSORE ROAD, KENGERI. (R.C. OWNER OF SAND LOADED LORRY BEARING REG. KA-42-8832)

¶19

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. (POLICY NO.1401262334010510, VALID FROM 18.10.2016-17.10.2017)

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED:22.11.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:22.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.796/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, 16TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the Award passed in M.V.C.No.796/2017 on the file of the XVI

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11797 MFA No. 4419 of 2018

¶27

Addl. Judge Court of Small Causes and Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 22.02.2018, whereby the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶28

The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- for the death of deceased in the accident. The claimants are the husband who is deaf and dumb, daughter, who is aged 11 years, father in law and mother-in-law. It is the case of the claimant that on 06.01.2017 at about 11.30 a.m., deceased was proceeding in an Active Honda as a pillion rider, at that time suddenly a sand lorry came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed and dashed against the Active Honda. Due to the forced impact, the pillion rider and the rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to the hospital. After the first aid treatment, they were referred to the KIMS hospital and admitted in the said hospital and deceased succumbed to the fatal injuries and they have

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11797 MFA No. 4419 of 2018

¶30

spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. According to the claimant, she was hale and healthy and earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month. All the claimants are dependant upon her. The Court below had held that the accident taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶31

When it comes to the compensation, as per the

¶32

evidence on record, the Court below had considered the income at Rs.7,000/- per month and by deducting 50% had granted the compensation as per the table given below:

¶33

Sl.	Heads	Amount
No.
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs. 8,40,000/-
2.	Towards transportation of dead	Rs. 15,000/-
	body and funeral expenses
3.	Loss of consortium	Rs. 40,000/-
4.	Loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
	Total	Rs.9,10,000/-

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11797 MFA No. 4419 of 2018

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant

¶36

submits that the compensation granted by the Court below is not a just and reasonable compensation. It is submitted that the Court below had taken the income at Rs.7,000/which is on the lower side. It is further submitted that the husband is a deaf and dumb person and he is the dependant upon her and also the daughter, who is 11 years old. The Court below ought not to have deducted 50%. It is submitted that the other conventional heads also the amounts that are granted by the Court below are not just and reasonable.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the Court below had rightly taken Rs.7,000/- as an income and also rightly deducted 50% towards personal expenses. It is submitted that the Court below basing on the evidence, had rightly granted the compensation and no grounds are made out for enhancement of the compensation.

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11797 MFA No. 4419 of 2018

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel on either

¶40

side, perused the material placed on record. According to the claimants the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month. No evidence is adduced with regard to the income. This Court taking into consideration the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, as this is an accident of the year 2017, income is taken at Rs.11,000/-. As the deceased is 31 years old, future prospects at 40% would come to Rs.4,400 i.e., Rs.15,400/-. The husband is a deaf and dumb person and also there is a daughter, who is 11 years old. The Court below ought not to have deducted 50%. Hence, this Court is deducting 1/3^rd , it would come to Rs.5,133/-, if the same is deducted, the contribution to the family would be (10,267X12X16)= Rs.19,71,264/- . Towards consortium for the daughter and the husband is (48000X2)= Rs.96,000/- . Towards funeral expenses Rs.36,000/- .

¶41

Further in the light of the law laid down by the

¶42

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M.

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:11797 MFA No. 4419 of 2018

¶44

MALATHI AND ANOTHER¹ , the claimant is entitled for an

¶45

amount of Rs.10,000/- towards ' legal expenses' .

¶46

The claimant is therefore, entitled to the

¶47

compensation under the following heads:

¶48

	Heads		C	ompensation
				Awarded
1.	Loss of dependency	:	Rs.	19,71,264/-
2.	Towards transportation of dead	:	Rs.	36,000/-
	body and funeral expenses
3.	Loss of consortium	:	Rs.	96,000/-
4.	Legal expenses	:	Rs.	10,000/-
	Total	:	Rs.	21,13,264/-

¶49

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part, enhancing the compensation from Rs.9,10,000/to Rs.21,13,264/-.

¶50

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

¶51

1 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:11797 MFA No. 4419 of 2018

¶53

ii) 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.

¶54

iii) 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.

¶55

iv) No costs.

¶56

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶57

SD/JUDGE

¶58

BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT:SNN

Sri Jagadeesha v. Nagalakshmi K L

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Jagadeesha v. Nagalakshmi K L

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J Gopinath Vs Kousalya Gopinath

Smt Vaishnavi M Vs Srikanth R

Sri. Nasappa Vs Smt. Varalakshmi

Rakshith H S Vs Nafeej Ahamad

The Manager Vs Smt. Lakshmamma

Smt Saroja Vs Sri Ravikumar