Partly allowed

Thangyamma v. Anil H.M

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024MFA/7940/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal appeal, the High Court accepted the appellant's submission that the notional income of the deceased mason should be Rs.14,500 per month instead of the Tribunal's Rs.13,000. Consequently, the court enhanced the compensation for loss of dependency and directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

The compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 2,26,800/- carrying 6% interest per annum.

Thangyamma Vs Anil H.M — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36434 MFA No. 7940 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7940 OF 2023 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THANGYAMMA, W/O LATE GANESHA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUDURU HOBLI, ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. BYRAREDDY G.S, ADVOCATE FOR; SMT. KAVITHA H.C, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

ANIL H.M, S/O MANJUNATHA, R/O HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUDURU HOBLI, ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. (OWNER OF LORRY BIKE BEARING REG. NO. KA 13 EP 4631)

¶13

THE MANAGER,

¶14

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.110, H.M. GENEVA HOUSE, CUNNINGHYAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 52.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2024 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36434 MFA No. 7940 of 2023

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.1203/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard Sri.Byrareddy, learned counsel who represents

¶23

Smt.Kavitha H.C, learned counsel on record for the appellant. Also heard Sri.H.S.Lingaraj, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶24

This is a claimants appeal. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Additional Motor

¶25

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hassan in

¶26

M.V.C. No.1203/2020 dated 29.08.2023.

¶27

The mother of the deceased Roopesh (herein after referred to as 'deceased' for brevity) filed a petition

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36434 MFA No. 7940 of 2023

¶29

claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- in total, on the ground that her son died in a road traffic accident. The tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.20,42,600/- divided under following heads:-

¶30

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	19,65,600-00
Loss of estate	16,500-00
Funeral expenses	16,500-00
Loss of consortium	44,000-00
Total	20,42,600-00

¶31

Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the appellant is before this Court.

¶32

Arguing the matter, Sri. Byrareddy learned counsel for appellant submits that the deceased as a mason was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, the tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.13,000/- per month, which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel submits that the accident occurred in the year 2020 and for the relevant period, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.14,500/- per month for settling the claims and at least

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:36434 MFA No. 7940 of 2023

¶35

the said figure should have been considered by the tribunal.

¶36

Sri. H.S.Lingaraj, learned counsel for respondent No.2 did not raise any objection to take the notional income of the deceased as Rs.14,500/- per month, as sought for by the appellant. Also the request made is justifiable. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to take the notional income of the deceased as Rs.14,500/per month.

¶37

There is no denial of the fact that the deceased

¶38

was aged about 20 years by the date of accident. The tribunal has rightly applied the required parameters i.e., addition of 40% towards future prospects, applying the appropriate multiplier '18' and deducting 50% of the earnings of the deceased towards personal and living expenses as the deceased died as Bachelor. Thus, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to under the head loss of dependency is as under:

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:36434 MFA No. 7940 of 2023

¶41

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Notional monthly income	14,500-00
Annual income	1,74,000-00
Add 40% towards future prospects	2,43,600-00
Deduct 50% towards	1,21,800-00
personal and living
expenses
Loss of dependency, on applying the appropriate multiplier'18'	21,92,400-00

¶42

The tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.19,65,600/- towards loss of dependency. Thus, the enhancement under the head loss of dependents will be Rs.2,26,800/- (Rs.21,92,400/--Rs.19,65,600/-). The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/towards funeral expenses and Rs.44,000/- towards loss of Consortium. The said grant is highly justifiable.

¶43

Thus, in the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is disposed of with the following:-

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:36434 MFA No. 7940 of 2023

¶48

ii. The compensation that is granted by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hassan, through orders in M.V.C. No.1203/2020 dated 29.08.2023 is enhanced by Rs.2,26,800/-.

¶49

iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶50

iv. The 2^nd respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶51

v. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire enhanced amount.

¶52

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶53

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT: BHK

Thangyamma v. Anil H.M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thangyamma v. Anil H.M

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

Sri. Narayanaswamy Vs Sri. Sukhram Bhawarkar

Mrs. Chitrangadha P.R Vs Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited.

Smt Nagamma Vs Kiran v

Horakerappa Vs Sri Gowrishankar

Regional Manager, M/S Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri. Annegowda

Nagaraju Vs Narayanaswamy J D