Mr Nagaraju Vs Mr. Velu T

THE BRANCH MANAGER THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.5/111, AND 6/112, 1^ST FLOOR, UNNATI ARCADE, 1^ST BLOCK, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI LAKSHMI NARAYAN C., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AWARD AMOUNT UNDER THE ABOVE SAID GROUNDS, BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.02.2015, PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND XXVI ACMM AT BANGALORE (SCCH-09), IN M.V.C.NO.548/2014 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT UNDER THE ABOVE SAID HEAD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

3 -

¶25

MFA No. 6203 of 2015

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶27

CAV JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 11^th February 2015 passed by the Court of Small Causes and MACT at Bengaluru (SCCH-09) (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.V.C.No.584/2014, awarding a sum of Rs.6,40,000/together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit on account of the death of one Smt.Sujathamma @ Sujatha in a road traffic accident that occurred on 24.06.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MC2427, near Biligere village, Tiptur Taluk, while she was traveling as an inmate of the car.

¶29

Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant and Respondent No.2, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶30

Both the counsel submit that the occurrence of accident as well as the coverage of the policy of the offending vehicle by the Insurance company are not in

¶31

4 -

¶32

MFA No. 6203 of 2015

¶33

dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶34

The Tribunal has awarded compensation under

¶35

various heads as under:

¶36

Sl.No.	Particulars	Rs.
1	Loss of estate	5,60,000-00
2	Transportation of dead body and for expenses for funeral and obsequies ceremony	25,000-00
3	Loss of love and affection	20,000-00
4	Loss of consortium	20,000-00
5	Loss of estate	15,000-00
	Total	Rs.6,40,000-00

¶37

I have given my careful consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and Respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

¶38

The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the Tribunal committed an error in not adding 40% of future prospects to the notional income without considering or appreciating the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company

¶39

5 -

¶40

MFA No. 6203 of 2015

¶41

Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC

¶42

680 . It is also contended by him that the Tribunal has failed to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram & Others (2018) 18 SCC 130 and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.1100/2019 & connected matter disposed of on 12.06.2019 in awarding compensation towards ‘loss of consortium’. He therefore requests this Court to enhance the compensation by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶43

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance company submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m., instead of Rs.8,000/as per the Lok Adalath guidelines. Further, the Tribunal committed an error in awarding excess compensation under conventional heads viz., ‘transportation of dead body’ and ‘loss of consortium’ and that the same requires reduction by this Court.

¶44

6 -

¶45

MFA No. 6203 of 2015

¶46

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2-Insurance Company, the Tribunal committed an error in failing to appreciate the Lok Adalat guidelines which stipulate that in respect of an accident that took place in the year 2013, the notional income should be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, the Tribunal ought to have added 40% of future prospects to the notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month.

¶47

The compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is calculated as hereunder:-

¶48

(Rs.8,000 x 40% = 3,200/- = Rs.11,200/-/ 1/3 = Rs.3,733/- Rs.11,200/- - Rs.3,733/- = Rs.7,467/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.13,44,060/-

¶49

Thus the appellants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.13,44,060/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’.

¶50

Considering the principles laid down by the Apex

¶51

Court in Magma’s case and the Division Bench of this Court (supra), the claimants are entitled to an additional

¶52

7 -

¶53

MFA No. 6203 of 2015

¶54

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’ for 03 dependents (Rs.40,000/- x 3 = 1,20,000/- - 20,000/-) as the Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head. The Tribunal has wrongly termed ‘Loss of dependency’ as ‘Loss of estate’ .

¶55

Therefore, the claimants are entitled to total

¶56

compensation as hereunder:-

¶57

Sl.No.	Particulars	Rs.
1	Loss of dependency	13,44,060-00
2	Transportation of dead body and for expenses for funeral and obsequies ceremony	25,000-00
3	Loss of love and affection	20,000-00
4	Loss of consortium	1,20,000-00
5	Loss of estate	15,000-00
	Total	Rs.15,24,060-00

¶58

Appellants – claimants would be entitled to total

¶59

compensation of Rs.15,24,060/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit as against a sum of Rs.6,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶60

8 -

¶61

MFA No. 6203 of 2015

¶62

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the

¶63

following order:-

¶64

(i) The appeal is partly allowed.

¶65

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 11.02.2015 passed by the Court of Small Causes/MACT, at Bengaluru, in MVC No.548/2014 is hereby modified.

¶66

(iii) The appellants-claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.15,24,060/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit within eight weeks from the date of petition till realization.

¶67

(iv) The apportionment and disbursement to be done as per the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶68

(v) Registry is directed to return the TCR to the Tribunal.

¶69

(vi) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶70

Sd/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)

¶71

JUDGE

¶72

bnv

Mr Nagaraju v. Mr. Velu T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Nagaraju v. Mr. Velu T

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

Mohammed Hafeez @ Hafeezulla Vs Sheik Ahmed

Kum Chandana Vs Sri Kumar

Smt Manjula Vs Ramesh Naidu v

Ramesh Gowda H M Vs Master. Sarbjith Singh

Shekar Poojary Vs Smt Jayashree

Dr Shivayogi B Mandakki Vs R P Udayakumar