Sri C v Ramanujam Vs Sri Vasanth Kumar S

MASTER R. SUJAN S/O RAMANUJAM AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, R/AT RAMANATHAPURA, ARAKALUGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 133 REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER SRI RAMANUJAM.

¶13

SMT. SHAMANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O LATE SRIRANACHAR, R/AT BADEKATTE, KAGGALIPURA POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22512-DB MFA No. 1694 of 2016

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI VASANTH KUMAR S. S/O SHANMUGAM V. MAJOR, R/AT NO.9, SHANMUGAM NILAYA, 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST BLOCK, SHANTHA KUMAR, L/O NAGANAPALYAM, BENGALURU - 560 033.

¶20

KUMAR S S/O SHIVARAJ MAJOR, R/AT NO. 16, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 16^TH CROSS, BAPUJINAGAR, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU-560 026.

¶21

SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED GROUND AND FIRST FLOOR, RUKMNI TOWERS, 3-1, PLATFORM ROAD/RAILWAY APPROACH ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADV. FOR R3, V/O DATED: 12/04/2016 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS D/W.)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 30.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.56/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 3^RD ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and

¶27

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:22512-DB MFA No. 1694 of 2016

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)

¶33

This appeal is by the claimants challenging the Judgment and Award dated 30^th November, 2015 passed in MVC No.56 of 2015 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal").

¶34

For the death of B.S. Saritha in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 14^th August 2014, appellants filed claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide impugned judgment, awarded compensation of Rs.14,34,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claimants are before this Court in the present appeal.

¶35

Sri Abhinav R, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the Tribunal has committed serious error in arriving at the conclusion to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, which is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Further, he submits that the Tribunal has also not

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22512-DB MFA No. 1694 of 2016

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

awarded just and proper compensation under other

¶39

conventional heads in accordance with the Judgment of the Hon' ble Supreme Court. On the aforementioned grounds, he sought to allow the appeal.

¶40

As against this, Sri Pradeep B, learned Counsel appearing for respondent-Insurance Company, submits that the Tribunal has considered the material placed before it and has awarded just and proper compensation which does not call for interference in this appeal.

¶41

We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels for the parties. It is not in dispute that B.S. Saritha died in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 14^th August 2014. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased. It is stated in the claim petition that the legal heirs were depending upon the income of the deceased. Petitioners have not produced any legal evidence to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.29,000/- per month. However, the petitioner relies on the document Exhibit P8-copy of ration card, wherein the age of deceased is shown as 30 years as on 31^st December

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22512-DB MFA No. 1694 of 2016

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

2012. Since there is no legal proof to establish the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.7,000/- per month. The same is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In view of the guidelines, for the accidents of the year 2014, the notional income is to be taken at Rs.8,500/- per month and hence the same is taken. In view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% is to be added to the income towards future prospects. If the same is added, the income comes to Rs.11,900/- per month. The petitioner has provided the evidence that as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 32 years and accordingly, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier would be 16. Since there are three dependents, onethird is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the loss of dependency would be

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:22512-DB MFA No. 1694 of 2016

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Rs.15,23,136/- (Rs.11,900 x 12 x 16 x 1/3). The same is awarded as against Rs.13,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶49

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of

¶50

Rs.30,000/- towards loss of love and affection to petitioner No.1-husband of the deceased and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is not in consonance with the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the appellants are entitled for compensation for towards loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- each, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards obsequies and funeral rites. As

¶51

a result, the appellants are entitled for the revised compensation as follows:

¶52

Sl.No.	Head	Amount (Rs.)
1.	Loss of dependency	15,23,136.00
2.	Towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-x 3	1,20,000.00
3.	Towards Loss of estate	15,000.00
4.	Towards obsequies and funeral rites	15,000.00
	Total	16,73,136.00

¶53

Accordingly, we pass the following:

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:22512-DB MFA No. 1694 of 2016

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

O R D E R

¶58

i) Appeal is allowed in part;

¶59

ii) Judgment and award dated 30^th November, 2015 passed in MVC No.56 of 2015 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, is modified holding that the appellants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.16,73,136/as against Rs.14,34,000/awarded by the Tribunal;

¶60

iii) It is made clear that the enhanced compensation carries interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation;

¶61

iv) Apportionment and disbursement of the compensation amount shall be as per the order of the Tribunal;

¶62

v) Registry to draw award accordingly.

¶63

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶64

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶65

lnn, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Sri C v. Ramanujam v Sri Vasanth Kumar S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C v. Ramanujam v Sri Vasanth Kumar S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Javare Gowda

R Subhadramma Vs R Susheela

Legal Manager Vs Smt. Swathi Y

Ram Mohan Vs Nagendra K C

Legal Manager Bharathi Axa Gic Ltd. Vs Shekar H G

Mrs H K Shilpa Vs Mr Subramanya