Smt Geetha Vs Smt Saritha

SMT. SARITHA S/O SHIVANANDA PUTHRAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT SARITHA NIVASA HOIGEBAZAR, THOTA VILLAGE MANGALORE TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 001.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:13779 MFA No. 1694 of 2019

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD VISHRANTHI MELARAM TOWERS NO.2/319, RAJIV GANDHI SALAI (OMR) KARAPAKKA, CHENNAI - 562 0013 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI H.S. LINGARAJ, ADV., FOR R-2; R-1 SERVED)

¶23

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED27.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.347/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.09.2017 passed in MVC.No.347/2016 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Kundapura, (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

¶28

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13779 MFA No. 1694 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Sri Kashinath.J.D., learned counsel for the appellant

¶32

submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month by ignoring the fact that the deceased was working as a coolie and used to earn more than Rs.15,000/- per month. It is submitted that the award of compensation on all other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, he seeks to enhance the compensation appropriately by allowing the appeal.

¶33

Per contra , Sri H.S.Lingaraj, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the claimants have failed to produce any evidence before the Tribunal with regard to income. Hence, the Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.7,000/- per month and applied the relevant multiplier and awarded just compensation which does not call for modification. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶34

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:13779 MFA No. 1694 of 2019

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The only point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is :

¶39

" Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference?"

¶40

One Lokanatha met with the accident on

¶41

21.01.2016 and sustained fatal injuries. Later he succumbed to the injuries. He was aged about 57 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by his wife, two children and the mother of the deceased. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,39,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶42

It is not in dispute that the claimants have failed to produce cogent and acceptable evidence before the Tribunal with regard to the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, this Court has notionally re-assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,500/- per month placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA.

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13779 MFA No. 1694 of 2019

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The deceased was in the age group of 50 to 60

¶46

years and hence, the compensation under the head loss of dependency has to be calculated with additional 10% towards the future prospects of the income of the deceased. The appropriate multiplier would be 9 and towards personal expenses, 1/4^th has to be deducted. Hence, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.9,500/- + 10% x 12 x 9 = 11,28,600/- - 2,82,150/- (1/4^th towards personal expenses) = Rs.8,46,450/-.

¶47

The claimants are the wife, two children and mother of the deceased and each of them are entitled for Rs.40,000/consortium with 10% escalation on the said amount, which would Rs.44,000/- x 4 = Rs.1,76,000/-.

¶48

The appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- + 10% escalation under the head transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, which comes to Rs.16,500/-. Thus, the appellants would be entitled to modified compensation as under:

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13779 MFA No. 1694 of 2019

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

HEADS	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
Loss of dependency	8,46,450/-
Loss of consortium	1,76,000/-
Transportation of dead body & funeral	16,500/-
expenses
Loss of estate	10,000/-
Total	10,48,950/-

¶52

Thus, the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,48,950/- as against Rs.6,39,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶53

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶54

following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

a) Appeal is allowed in part .

¶57

b) The impugned judgment and award dated 27.09.2017 passed by the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellantclaimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,48,950/- as against Rs.6,39,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶58

c) The enhanced compensation shall carry at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:13779 MFA No. 1694 of 2019

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

d) The respondent No.2 shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶63

e) The rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit and release shall remain unaltered.

¶64

f) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶65

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶66

KK

Smt Geetha v. Smt Saritha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Geetha v. Smt Saritha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Godwin Pereira Vs Munavar M

Mr Jabeer @ Mahammad Jabir Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Santhosh Kumar P C Vs B Gnanendra Prasad

Sri Lohith K M Vs Bajaj Allianz General

D B Balakrishna Vs Padmanabha C C

Baby Rakshitha Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.