Partly allowed

Mrs. Meena v. Mrs. Rehana Nazeer

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2024MFA/5298/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant sought enhancement of motor accident death compensation under Section 163-A. Court applied Rs.40,000 annual notional income with one-third deduction and multiplier 18, enhancing compensation to Rs.5,20,000 with interest at 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.3,96,400 to Rs.5,20,000 with interest at 6% p.a.; Insurance Company directed to deposit within six weeks.

Mrs. Meena Vs Mrs. Rehana Nazeer — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31107 MFA No. 5298 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5298 OF 2019 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS. MEENA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS W/O.ARKA BHADOOR INDIRA NAGAR, HILUVALLI NARASIMHARAJAPURA CHICKMAGALURE-577134.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.AKASH B SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MRS. REHANA NAZEER W/O K.S.NAZEER AHMED ADULT, "HUSSINI MANZIL", SALMARA KARKALA KASBA VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK,UDUPI DISTRICT-574104.

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 1ST FLOOR, NITHYANANDA COMPLEX MOODABIDRI 574227.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H S LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.942/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & AMACT, KARKALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:31107 MFA No. 5298 of 2019

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

¶21

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.03.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & AMACT, Karkala in MVC No.942/2015.

¶22

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 02.02.2015 at about 02.15 p.m., the deceased Mr.Bikram Bahadur S.K., was riding motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-20R-1975 MC Bajaj Pulser on the left side of the Gandhi Maidan Road, at that time, the driver of the Maruthi SX4 motor car bearing Registration No.KA-20-P-5408 came on the opposite side and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31107 MFA No. 5298 of 2019

¶24

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest. Subsequently by way of amendment, the petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act.

¶25

Upon service of notice, the respondents appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶26

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove the case, examined claimant as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On behalf of respondents, neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,96,400/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31107 MFA No. 5298 of 2019

¶28

Company to deposit the compensation amount along with

¶29

interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the claimant has raised the following submission:

¶31

a) Firstly, under Section 163-A of the Act, the notional income of the deceased should be considered as Rs.40,000 per annum and 1/3^rd of the deceased’s income should be deducted towards personal expenses, not 50% as considered by the Tribunal, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act.

¶32

b) Secondly, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶33

Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following submissions:

¶34

a) Firstly, although the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act, later, on request of the claimant, the claim petition has been amended and the same has

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31107 MFA No. 5298 of 2019

¶36

been treated as the one filed under Section 163-A of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,300/-. The overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶37

b) Secondly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others -

¶38

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 8% p.a. on the compensation amount appears excessive. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶39

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

¶40

Even though the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act, later, the claimant sought for amendment of the claim petition to be filed under Section 163-A of the Act. As per Schedule-II of the Act, the annual income has to be considered as Rs.40,000/- and 1/3^rd of

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31107 MFA No. 5298 of 2019

¶42

the income of the deceased has to be considered towards personal expenses. The deceased was aged about 20 years, the multiplier applicable to the age group is ‘18’. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- (Rs.40,000182/3) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶43

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the

¶44

other heads are just and reasonable.

¶45

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶46

compensation:

¶47

Compensation under	Amount in
different Heads	(Rs.)
Loss of dependency	4,80,000
Loss of love and affection	20,000
Funeral expenses	10,000
Conveyance	10,000
Total	5,20,000

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:31107 MFA No. 5298 of 2019

¶50

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶53

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶54

c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

¶55

Rs.5,20,000/- as against Rs.3,96,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶56

d) Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra), the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶57

e) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within

¶58

a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶59

f) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount

¶60

shall be made in accordance with the terms of the award

¶61

of the Tribunal.

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:31107 MFA No. 5298 of 2019

¶63

g) In view of the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by this

¶64

Court, the claimant is not entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period of 359 days in filing the appeal.

¶65

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶66

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Mrs. Meena v. Mrs. Rehana Nazeer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Meena v. Mrs. Rehana Nazeer

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

Kempegowda Vs Sunil Kumar S S

Sri M Munikrishnappa Vs Sri Subhranarayan Patra

Sri Purushotham Vs the Managing Director

Baby Manasa Vs Sri Lakshmana Gowda B N

Smt. T. Dhanalakshmi Vs Sri. K. Kumar @ Madhukumar

Imthiyaz Vs Sri Susheel Kumar