Allowed

Mrs. Dulsin Monteiro v. Mr. Mohammed Altaf Usman

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2024MFA/7249/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Miscellaneous First Appeal challenged the MACT judgment regarding compensation for a motor vehicle accident resulting in death. The High Court enhanced the awarded compensation from Rs. 2.45 lakhs to Rs. 8.05 lakhs, including interest at 6% per annum, allowing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the appeal, modified the impugned judgment, and awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,60,000 plus interest at 6% per annum.

Mrs. Dulsin Monteiro Vs Mr. Mohammed Altaf Usman — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9241 MFA No. 7249 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7249 OF 2016(MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MRS. DULSIN MONTEIRO W/O LATE ELIA MONTEIRO, AGED 78 YEARS,

¶10

MRS. FLAVY FERRAO D/O DUSLIN MONTEIRO, AGED 43 YEARS,

¶11

PRIYA FERRAO D/O FLAVY FERRAO, AGED 18 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

APPELLANT NO.1 IS THE MOTHER, NO.2 IS THE SISTER AND NO.3 IS THE NIECE OF LATE. JOSEPH MONTEIRO, ALL ARE RESIDING AT SUSHMA NIVAS, KARMIKA COLONY, SHAKTHI NAGAR, PADAVU, MANGALORE D.K.DISTRICT. PIN-575 016.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

MR. MOHAMMED ALTAF USMAN, S/O USMAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT 5/19-1, TASLI, MANZIL, BASTHIPADPU, ULLAL, MANGALORE, D.K.DISTRICT. PIN-575 008.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:9241 MFA No. 7249 of 2016

¶20

SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., OFFICE AT E-8, EPIP RIICO, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANGER. PIN-302 022.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2;

¶23

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 01.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.191/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT-II, D.K., MANGALURU.

¶24

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING-INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Sri.Ravishankar Shastry., learned counsel for the appellants has appeared in person.

¶27

Sri.B.C.Shivannegowda., learned counsel for respondent No.2 has appeared in person.

¶28

Notice to respondents was ordered on 15.02.2017. A perusal of the daily order sheet depicts that the first respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:9241 MFA No. 7249 of 2016

¶31

engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶32

Though the appeal is listed today for hearing on interlocutory application, with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, it is heard finally.

¶33

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.

¶34

It is the case of the claimants that on the 27^th day of November 2012 at about 8:30 p.m., Mr.Joseph Monteiro was walking on the side of Padavi junction - Nantur Junction road near Alwaries shipping Centre. At that time the driver of Sumo Grand bearing Reg. No.KA-19/D-5026 came from Padavi junction side in a rash and negligent manner and went to the extreme side of the road and hit Mr.Joseph Monteiro and caused the accident. As a result of which, Mr.Joseph Monteiro sustained grievous injuries and shifted to Omega Hospital Pumpwell Mangalore. The doctor examined him and declared brought dead. The dead body was shifted to Government Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore for post-mortem examination. Regardnig the accident, a complaint was also lodged before

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:9241 MFA No. 7249 of 2016

¶37

Traffic East Police who registered a case, investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle Sumo. The dependants of the deceased filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

¶38

In response to the notice, the first respondent did not appear and he placed ex-parte. The second respondent appeared through their counsel and filed statement of objections and they denied the petition averments. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the petition against him with costs.

¶39

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:01.04.2015 allowed the claim petition in part. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.2 have urged several contentions.

¶41

Learned counsel for the appellants in presenting his arguments vehemently contended that the Tribunal has erred

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:9241 MFA No. 7249 of 2016

¶44

in awarding meagre compensation. He argued by saying that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement. Counsel therefore, submits that the appeal may be allowed.

¶45

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 justified the Judgment and award of the Tribunal. He submits that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.

¶46

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records with utmost care.

¶47

The point that would arise for consideration is whether the Claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation?

¶48

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The Claimants appeal is one for enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment.

¶49

It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand only) towards Loss of dependency. It is contended that the deceased was working as a Mason. However, there is no proof of income

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:9241 MFA No. 7249 of 2016

¶52

for the same. Hence, the chart prepared by the Legal Service Authority must be taken into consideration. As per the chart, the salary of the deceased must be taken as Rs.7,000/(Rupees Seven Thousand only) per month if the accident is occurred in the year 2012. The age of the deceased was 45 years as on the date of accident, hence the multiplier 14 is to be adopted. Hence, the amount towards the loss of dependency is as under:

¶53

Rs.7,000/- X 12 X 14/2	Rs.5,88,000/-
Add: Future prospects:	(+)Rs.1,47,000/-
It is taken into consideration at
25% as per chart because the age
of deceased is between 40 to 50.
Rs.5,88,000 X 25/100 =1,47,000/-
Total	Rs.7,35,000/-

¶54

This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.15,000/(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards Funeral expenses as against Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only); Rs.40,000/(Rupees Forty Thousand only) towards loss of love and affection as against Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:9241 MFA No. 7249 of 2016

¶57

only) and Rs.15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards loss of estate as against Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal.

¶58

Accordingly, this Court re-determines the

¶59

compensation as under:-

¶60

1.	Funeral expenses	10,000+5,000	Rs.15,000/-
2.	Loss of dependency	7,35,000	Rs.7,35,000/-
3.	Loss of love and affection.	15,000+ 25,000	Rs.40,000/-
4.	Loss of estate	10,000+5,000	Rs.15,000/-
		Total:	Rs.8,05,000/-
	(Less) Compensatio	n awarded by the Tribunal:	- Rs.2,45,000/-
	Enhanced compens	ation awarded by this Court:	Rs.5,60,000/-

¶61

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

¶62

and the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant time, this Court deems it appropriate to award interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of claim petition till realization.

¶63

10. Hence, the following:

¶64

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC:9241 MFA No. 7249 of 2016

¶66

ORDER

¶67

The Miscellaneous First appeal is

¶68

allowed and the Judgment dated:01.04.2015 passed by MACT, D.K., Mangalore in M.V.C No.191/2013 is modified to the extent stated hereinabove.

¶69

The claimants are entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶70

The first respondent shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with 6% interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this Judgment.

¶71

Needless to observe that the appellants/ claimants are not entitled for the interest for delayed period.

¶72

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:9241 MFA No. 7249 of 2016

¶74

The Registry to draw the modified award

¶75

accordingly.

¶76

Office is directed to transmit the original

¶77

records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶78

Sd/JUDGE

¶79

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Mrs. Dulsin Monteiro v. Mr. Mohammed Altaf Usman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Dulsin Monteiro v. Mr. Mohammed Altaf Usman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mariyappa Vs Manjesh

Smt Pushpa Vs Sri Santhosh P C

Madegowda S/O Kunnegowda Vs Chikkegowda S/O Marigowda Since Decd by His Lrs

Smt Rajamma @ Rachamma Vs Jitendra Singh

Raghavendra Vs C K Bhavani

Umesh Naik Vs Prathap Hegde