Smt. Thilagaveni Vs Smt.Maheswai

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, T.P. HUB, 5^TH AND 6^TH FLOORS, KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, (INSURER OF MOTORCYCLE BEARING NO.KA-08-R-3363 POLICY NO.0715003118P100856684 VALID FROM 22-4-2018 TO 21-04-2019)

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; V/O/D 24.07.2024, NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS D/W)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.12.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.6423/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C XXII ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-24, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION, SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10252 MFA No. 2822 of 2023

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 27.12.2022 passed in MVC No.6423/2018 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-24) (for short 'the tribunal'). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate compensation awarded by the tribunal.

¶29

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

¶30

It is a case of the appellants that one of their brothers Magendramani.M was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-08-L-3310 on 03.05.2018 cautiously observing the traffic rules and regulations proceeding to K.G.F., Bangarpet road and while he reached the Toll Gate, BEML Nagar, K.G.F., at that time, another motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-08-R-3363 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle of the deceased Magendramani, due to which, he fell down and sustained severe injuries, immediately he

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10252 MFA No. 2822 of 2023

¶32

was shifted to K.G.F. Government Hospital and thereafter, to R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar where he was admitted as an inpatient. Unfortunately, despite best efforts by the doctors, he succumbed to the injuries on 05.05.2018. The appellants who are the siblings of the deceased Magendramani filed claim petition seeking compensation from the respondents i.e., owner of the offending motorcycle and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle.

¶33

On appearance by the respondents statement of objection was filed denying the claim of the claimants and the respondents sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶34

On the basis of materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, the tribunal partly allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of ₹3,97,500/along with interest at 6% per annum fixing the liability jointly against the respondents and directed respondent No. 2 to pay the compensation within 60 days.

¶35

Being dissatisfied by the inadequate compensation, the appellants are before this Court seeking

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10252 MFA No. 2822 of 2023

¶37

adequate compensation and consequently, to enhance the same.

¶38

It is vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded is meagre not commensurate to the income of the deceased and the notional income chart prescribed by the Legal Services Authority and he seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶39

Per contra , learned counsel Sri.B.C.Shivannegowda appearing on behalf of Insurance Company sustains the impugned order contending that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable which does not call for interference. In fact, he contends that there is no proof of income. However, reasonable amount is awarded relying upon the notional income chart. Therefore, the judgement passed by the tribunal is justified. On these grounds, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

¶40

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company. The occurrence of accident, involvement of the vehicle, injuries sustained in the road traffic accident

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10252 MFA No. 2822 of 2023

¶42

leading to the death of deceased Magendramani is proved by production of Exs.P-1 to P-13 and negligence is rightly attributed against the rider of the offending vehicle, which is not questioned or challenged.

¶43

Now, coming to the question of age, avocation, income, appropriate multiplier and the deductions, it is seen that the deceased was aged 60 years as on date of occurrence of accident. The multiplier is taken at '9' which is correct and does not call for interference. Income is taken by the tribunal at Rs.12,500/- which is also correct, in view of the Legal Services Authority chart, which also does not call for interference. However, the deduction towards personal and living expenses is taken at 25% which learned counsel contends that requires to be modified and by taking the deduction at 50% I agree with learned counsel for the appellants that deductions are required to be taken at 50% where the appellants, who are claimants are not dependants, but are the legal heirs/siblings of the deceased and who are not actually dependant on the deceased. Under the circumstances, they would be treated as the legal representatives entitled

¶44

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10252 MFA No. 2822 of 2023

¶45

to loss of estate but not as dependants for same. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New

¶46

India Assurance Company Limited -vs- Vinish Jain and others reported in SLP (C)No.13933/2017 has dealt with this matter and awarded 50% towards loss of estate on the income of the deceased, the same would be applicable in the present case on hand. Therefore, the loss of estate to be awarded to the claimant Rs.6,75,000/(Rs.12,500 x 50% = Rs.6250 x 12 x 9) as against Rs.3,97,500/-.

¶47

The appellants would be entitled to loss of estate and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- each. Hence, they will be entitled to Rs.30,000/- under this head.

¶48

In view of the judgement in the case of Vinish Jain the appellants would also be entitled to loss of consortium in view of there being 4 persons, who are the legal representatives and siblings of the deceased each would be entitled to Rs.40,000/per person, Rs.1,60,000/- (40,000 x 4) is awarded under this head.

¶49

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10252 MFA No. 2822 of 2023

¶50

In view of the above discussions, the appellants/claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.8,65,000/- as against Rs.3,97,500/-. Accordingly, I pass the following:-

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

¶53

ii) The judgment and award dated 27.12.2022 passed in MVC.No.6423/2018 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-24) is modified;

¶54

iii) The appellants/claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.8,65,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.3,97,500/-;

¶55

iv) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall pay the balance compensation amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶56

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10252 MFA No. 2822 of 2023

¶57

v) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal with regard to apportionment is retained.

¶58

vi) The compensation shall be disbursed in favour of the appellants by way of electronic transfer upon proper identification on the appellants producing relevant bank details.

¶59

Ordered accordingly.

¶60

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶61

VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT:SNN

Smt. Thilagaveni v. Smt.Maheswai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Thilagaveni v. Smt.Maheswai

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

Smt. Latha. R Vs Smt. Jayasudha. M

Sri Channareddy Patil Tunnuru Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Arathi a Lad Vs State S I T Lokayuktha

Smt Yallavva Kumar Kandli @ Yallavva Vs Ramesh D.H.

Ajay Gupta Vs the Manager Universal Sompo Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

Shobha. N Vs Shivappa. M