The Universal Sompo Insurance Vs Mr Irafan

MR. MOHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O HAJI T.A. KHADER, NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT FAROOQ MANZIL, PERARI POST, VAMANJUR, THIRUVAIL VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK-575 003.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R3 - SERVED)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.698/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-VI, MANGALURU AWARDING A SUM OF RS.4,52,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶26

IN MFA NO.6716/2015:

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

MR. IRFAN, S/O LATE HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

¶29

KUM. SAFRINA, D/O LATE HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶30

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT VIII BLOCK, CHOKKABETTU, SURATHKAL, MANGALURU-575 014.

¶31

...APPELLANTS

¶32

(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B.R., ADVOCATE)

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38556 MFA No. 3341 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 6716 of 2015

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

AND:

¶36

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1^ST FLOOR, CITY TRADE CENTER, OPP. CITY HOSPITAL, KADRI, MANGALURU-575 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶37

MR. MOHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O HAJI T.A. KHADER, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT FAROOQ MANZIL, PERARI POST, VAMANJUR, THIRUVAIL VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK-575 028.

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 26.03.2019, NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶40

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.698/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-6, MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶41

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

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38556 MFA No. 3341 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 6716 of 2015

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶45

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶46

These two appeals are filed against the award passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.698/2012 dated 21.09.2013.

¶47

M.F.A.No.3341/2014 is filed by the Insurance Company disputing the quantum of compensation and M.F.A.No.6716/2015 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation.

¶48

Heard the arguments of both the sides.

¶49

One Faisar, met with an accident on 08.04.2012 and died. His elder brother and sister aged 22 years and 20 years filed the claim application claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.4,52,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶50

Aggrieved by the said order, these two appeals are filed before this Court.

¶51

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38556 MFA No. 3341 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 6716 of 2015

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Faizar was aged 19 years as on the date of the accident and he was working as a driver and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but no evidence is adduced regarding his income. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to take his income as Rs.7,000/- per month as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance

¶54

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others¹ , 40% is to be added towards future prospects. The deceased was a bachelor, therefore 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

¶55

Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation² .

¶56

Now the ‘loss of dependency’ is calculated as under:

¶57

Monthly income – Rs.7,000/Add: 40% towards Future prospects - Rs.2,800/-------------Rs.9,800/Less: 50% towards Personal expenses - Rs.4,900/-------------Rs.4,900/---------------Loss of dependency = Rs.10,58,400/- (Rs.4,900/- x 12 x 18) -----------------

¶58

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶59

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶60

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38556 MFA No. 3341 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 6716 of 2015

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

The petitioners are entitled for loss of love and

¶63

affection at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each . Apart from that,

¶64

the petitioners are also entitled for an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶65

Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled for total

¶66

compensation as below:

¶67

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	10,58,400/-
Loss of love and affection	80,000/-
Funeral expenses	15,000/-
Total	11,53,400/-

¶68

Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced from

¶69

Rs.4,52,000/- to Rs.11,53,400/- with interest at the rate of

¶70

6% per annum.

¶71

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

(i) M.F.A.No.3341/2014 is dismissed .

¶74

(ii) M.F.A.No.6716/2015 is allowed in part.

¶75

(iii) The judgment and award dated 21.09.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.698/2012, by the MACT

¶76

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:38556 MFA No. 3341 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 6716 of 2015

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

and I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Mangalore, is modified.

¶79

(iv) The petitioners are entitled to equal apportionment of Rs.11,53,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶80

(v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount along with interest within one month from the date of this order.

¶81

(vi) On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the amount equally along with interest accrued on the same.

¶82

(vii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶83

(viii) Draw award accordingly.

¶84

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶85

MD

¶86

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

The Universal Sompo Insurance v. Mr Irafan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Universal Sompo Insurance v. Mr Irafan

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

Sri. C S Paramesha Vs Sri. Chanakeshawa

The Deputy Commissioner Vs Kariyamma

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Shakunthalamma

The Manager Vs S. N. Ramegowda Alias Rajanna

M/S Royal Sundaram Vs Sri Sachidananda Shetty

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Mahendra Naik