Partly allowed

Gangadhara L Poojari v. the Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2024MFA/6410/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants appealed against inadequate compensation awarded for the death of their son, a 21-year-old engineer, killed when a car dashed his two-wheeler. The court enhanced income from Rs.14,000 to Rs.20,000 per month, added loss of consortium for parents, and raised total compensation from Rs.21,46,800 to Rs.31,45,000 with 6% interest.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gangadhara L Poojari Vs the Manager Reliance General… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:10921 MFA No. 6410 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6410 OF 2022 (MV-D)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

GANGADHARA L.POOJARI S/O.LOKAIAH

¶7

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶8

NUTHAN G.SALIYAN W/O.GANGADHARA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶9

PRIYANKA D/O.GANGADHARA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶10

ALL ARE R/AT 2-57 GAYATHRI NILAYA NAKURU HOUSE BONDATILA VILLAGE PADU POST MANGALORE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA-571 45

¶11

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

NOW R/AT SHIVRAMU HOUSE VIVEKA NAGARA BADAVANE HASSAN TOWN HASSAN-573 201

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SMT.ANUPAMA D.A., FOR SRI GIRISH B.BALADARE, ADVOCATES)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:10921 MFA No. 6410 of 2022

¶19

1^ST FLOOR, KRUTHIKA ARCADE N R CIRCLE H.N.PURA ROAD HASSAN-573 201

¶20

DARSHAN K.S. S/O.SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS NEAR NDRK COLLEGE UDAYAGIRI BADAVANE HASSAN TOWN HASSAN-573 201

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED V/O. DATED 09.11.2022)

¶23

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.08.2022 IN MVC NO.1257/2021 BY II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 04.08.2022 passed in MVC.No.1257/2021 by the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, MACT at Hassan (for short ‘the tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:10921 MFA No. 6410 of 2022

¶28

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal.

¶29

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶30

On 26.04.2021 at about 11.40 a.m., one Preetham

¶31

Poojari @ Preetham was proceeding on his two wheeler

¶32

bearing registration No.KA-19-HC-3397 towards Mangaluru from Bengaluru, when he reached Kenchantahalli circle, the driver of car bearing registration No.KA-13-N-4862 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said two wheeler of the said Preetham. Due to the said accident, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his head, face, leg and hand and unfortunately, he died at the spot.

¶33

3.1 It is stated that the deceased Preetham was doing Automobile Engineering work and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to the sudden and untimely death of Preetham, the claimants being the parents and brother, filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:10921 MFA No. 6410 of 2022

¶36

3.2 On service of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition including age, avocation, income and negligence attributed against the driver of the offending car and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶37

3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed the relevant issues for consideration.

¶38

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, claimant No.1 got examined himself as PW.1 and examined another witness as PW.2 and got

¶39

marked documents as Exs.P1 to P9. On the other hand, respondent No.1 neither examined any witness nor got marked any document.

¶40

3.5 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsels for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.21,46,800/- with interest @ 9% p.a.

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10921 MFA No. 6410 of 2022

¶42

and directed respondent No.2-Insurance Company to pay the compensation within 30 days from the date of the order.

¶43

3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶44

Learned counsel for appellants-claimants submits that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation, which calls for interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, he seeks to enhance the compensation.

¶45

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.1Insurance Company sustains the judgment and award of the tribunal and contends that the tribunal has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10921 MFA No. 6410 of 2022

¶47

Having heard the learned counsels for the appellants-claimants and learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment and award, it is seen that Exs.P1 to P8 are the Police records, which depict registering of FIR and laying of charge sheet against the driver of offending car, which is not challenged or disputed. Hence, negligence is rightly attributed as against the driver of the offending car.

¶48

Now coming to the age, avocation and income, it

¶49

is seen that the deceased was aged 21 years as on the date of occurrence of accident and the tribunal applied multiplier at '18', which does not call for interference and the same is retained. He was an Engineering graduate and working in a Private Company and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The tribunal has taken the income at Rs.14,000/- per month, whereas, Ex.P9 is B.E.Degree Certificate produced by the claimants shows that the deceased was Bachelor of Engineering. Hence, he cannot be taken as a coolie or a daily wager by awarding notional

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:10921 MFA No. 6410 of 2022

¶51

income of Rs.14,000/-. Even according to the Legal Services Authority chart, it is Rs.15,000/-. However, considering the fact that he was an Engineering Degree holder and working in a Company, this Court deems it appropriate to take the income at Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶52

The tribunal added 40% towards future prospects and deducted ½ towards personal and living expenses, which do not call for interference and the same are retained. Therefore, in view of enhancement of income by this Court, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.30,24,000/- (Rs.20,000/- + 40% = Rs.28,000/- - 50% = Rs.14,000/- x 12 x 18) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.21,16,800/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶53

The tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of consortium. I am in agreement with learned counsel for appellants-claimants that as there are two dependants i.e. parents of the deceased, they are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each. Therefore, the claimants would be

¶54

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:10921 MFA No. 6410 of 2022

¶55

entitled to Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 2) and 10% escalation for one block period on the same to be awarded

¶56

under this head, which would come to Rs.88,000/- (Rs.80,000/- + 10%).

¶57

The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

¶58

estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all, Rs.30,000/is awarded, which does not call for interference and the same is retained. However 10% escalation for one block period on the same to be awarded, which would come to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/+ 10%).

¶59

In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.31,45,000/- as against Rs.21,46,800/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶60

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	30,24,000-00
Loss of consortium	88,000-00
Loss of estate and funeral	33,000-00
expenses and transportation of
dead body
TOTAL	31,45,000-00

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:10921 MFA No. 6410 of 2022

¶63

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶66

ii) The judgment and award dated 04.08.2022 passed in MVC.No.1257/2021 by the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, MACT at Hassan, is modified;

¶67

iii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.31,45,000/- as against Rs.21,46,800/-;

¶68

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest at 6% per annum by respondent No.1-Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶69

v) The terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal with regard to apportionment, Fixed Deposit, release and deposit of the amount are undisturbed and retained.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 90

Gangadhara L Poojari v. the Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gangadhara L Poojari v. the Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak K.G. Vs Sugu G @ Sukumaran

Rathnamma @ Nagarathnamma @ Nagarathna Vs S Raghu

Mahesh D Vs Santosh

A.N.Nachappa Vs Pradeep Kumar H.K.

Dhyamaiah Vs Nagaraju N .

Smt Sudhamani K S @ Sudha Vs Darshan a R