T S Lalitha Vs C K Ravi Kumar

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1152/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR AND ETC.,

¶30

IN MFA NO. 2555/2022

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

T S LALITHA W/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶33

B M SUNIL W/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶34

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BILIGERE PALYA KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK - 572 201.

¶35

...APPELLANTS

¶36

(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K, ADVOCATE)

¶37

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16246-DB MFA No. 2536 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2555 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

AND:

¶40

C K RAVIKUMAR

¶41

S/O KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT BANDIGANAVILE VILLAGE (HOBLI) LALKERE POST

¶42

NAGAMANGALA TALUK - 571 432.

¶43

UNITED INDIA INS. CO LTD. BY ITS MANAGER NO.1119/B KAMBALI BUILDING M G ROAD ASHOKANAGAR MANDYA - 571 401.

¶44

...RESPONDENTS

¶45

(V/O DATED 23.08.2023 - SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE IS DECIDED TO TAKE NOTICE FOR R2; V/O DATED 23.08.2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶46

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1151/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR AND ETC.,

¶47

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶48

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶49

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶50

These two appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are by the Claimants in MVC

¶51

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:16246-DB MFA No. 2536 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2555 of 2022

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

No.1152/2019 and MVC No.1151/2019 respectively, calling in question the Judgment and Award dated 28.01.2022 passed by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur (for short 'the Tribunal').

¶54

The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶55

In an accident occurred on 09.10.2018, one Mahadevaiah and his daughter Sowmya, succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Claimants being the wife & son of Mahadevaiah and mother & brother of Sowmya, filed two separate claim petitions seeking compensation in MVC No.1151/2019 and 1152/2019 respectively. The Tribunal after considering the material evidence on record, partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation to claimant No.1 and dismissed the claim in respect of claimant No.2. The claimants have filed the appeals supra on quantum of compensation.

¶56

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:16246-DB MFA No. 2536 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2555 of 2022

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

In MFA No.2536/2022

¶59

Sri.Shantharaj.K., learned counsel with all

¶60

vehemence submits that the Tribunal has failed to consider the income of the deceased and granted meager compensation. He submits that the deceased Sowmya was a B.A graduate with D.Ed. diploma in education. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have considered the income at Rs.20,000/- per month. Urging several contentions, counsel submits that the appeal may be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal may be enhanced.

¶61

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, perused the appeal paper as well as the Trial Court record.

¶62

A memo has been filed furnishing certain documents i.e., marks cards, degree certificate and diploma certificate. A perusal of the same depicts that the deceased Sowmya was a B.A graduate with D.Ed. i.e., diploma in education. Considering the fact that deceased was a degree holder and in view of the fact that accident

¶63

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:16246-DB MFA No. 2536 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2555 of 2022

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

has occurred in the year 2018, we are of the considered

¶66

opinion that, if the income is considered as Rs.20,000/per month, it would meet the ends of justice. In view of the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires reconsideration. Accordingly, this Court proceeds

¶67

to reassess the compensation as under:

¶68

Sl. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs.	By this Court In Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	7,14,000-00	28,56,000-00 (20,000 + 40%x12x17x50%)
2.	Loss of Love and affection	25,000-00	-
3.	Loss of consortium	30,000-00	80,000-00
4.	Funeral expenses, transportation of dead body, obsequies ceremony and loss of estate	25,000-00	30,000-00
5.	10% escalation (for two terms of three completed years on conventional heads)	-	22,000-00
	TOTAL	7,89,000-00	29,88,000-00

¶69

Accordingly, the claimant No.1 is entitled for reassessed compensation of Rs.29,88,000/-. As such, entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.21,99,000/- (29,88,000 - 7,89,000) which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the rate of petition till realization.

¶70

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:16246-DB MFA No. 2536 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2555 of 2022

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

In MFA No.2555/2022

¶73

Sri.Shantharaj.K., learned counsel with all

¶74

vehemence submits that the Tribunal has failed to consider the income of the deceased and granted meager compensation. He further submits that the deceased was an agriculturist and was also doing milk vending business. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have considered the income at Rs.15,000/- per month. He also submits that the deceased was under treatment for a month after the accident and the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head 'Medical expenses'. Urging several contentions, counsel submits that the appeal may be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal may be enhanced.

¶75

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, perused the appeal paper as well as the Trial Court record.

¶76

As could be seen from the records, immediately after the accident, the deceased Mahadevaiah was shifted

¶77

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:16246-DB MFA No. 2536 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2555 of 2022

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

to Government Hospital, Tiptur and after giving first aid treatment, he was further shifted to People's Tree Hospital, Bengaluru for higher treatment. Later, on 10.11.2018, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident while taking treatment in the hospital.

¶80

Before the Tribunal, the claimants have produced medical bills and got marked the same as Ex.P19 to 39. A perusal of the same reflects that the claimants have incurred total medical expenses of Rs.10,52,365/-. The Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that the deceased was under treatment for a period of a month from the date

¶81

of accident and has not awarded any compensation under the head 'Medical Expenses'. Absolutely, there is no discussion on this aspect. As there is no serious dispute in cross-examination on this point, we are of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for the Medical Expenses. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the deceased was an agriculturist owning land to the total extent of 35 Acres 28 Guntas (Ex.P10 to P17) and was also doing milk vending

¶82

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:16246-DB MFA No. 2536 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2555 of 2022

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

treatment, we are of the considered opinion that, if the income is considered as Rs.15,000/- per month, it would meet the ends of justice. Considering the age of the deceased Mahadavaiah as on the date of accident i.e., within 60 years, the claimants are also entitled for 10% future prospectus. In these circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires reconsideration. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to reassess the compensation which reads as under:

¶85

Sl. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs.	By this Court In Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	5,04,036-00	11,88,000-00 (15,000 + 10%x12x9x2/3)
2.	Loss of Love and affection	25,000-00	-
3.	Loss of consortium	25,000-00	80,000-00
4.	Funeral expenses, transportation of dead body, obsequies ceremony	25,000-00	30,000-00
5.	Medical expenses	-	10,52,365-00
6.	10% escalation (for two terms of three completed years on conventional heads)	-	22,000-00
	TOTAL	7,89,000-00	23,72,365-00

¶86

Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for re-

¶87

assessed compensation of Rs.23,72,365/- rounded off to

¶88

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:16246-DB MFA No. 2536 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2555 of 2022

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

Rs.23,72,500/-. As such, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.15,83,500/- (23,72,500 - 7,89,000) which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the rate of petition till realization.

¶91

This Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶92

ORDER

¶93

I. The appeal filed by the Claimants in MFA No.2536/2022 is allowed in part . Claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.21,99,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Respondent No.2 Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within six weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶94

II. The appeal filed by the Claimants in MFA No.2555/2022 is allowed in part . Claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.15,83,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶95

11 -

¶96

NC: 2026:KHC:16246-DB MFA No. 2536 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2555 of 2022

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

Respondent No.2 Insurer is directed to deposit

¶99

the re-assessed compensation within six weeks

¶100

from the receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶101

III. The Tribunal upon deposit, shall release the

¶102

entire amount except Rs.48,000/- in favour of claimant No.1 after due identification, in both the claim petition. Claimant No.2 is entitled for Rs.48,000/- in both the claim petition along with accrued interest supra.

¶103

IV. The trial Court record shall be transmitted forthwith to the concerned Tribunal without causing any delay.

¶104

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶105

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶106

TKN

¶107

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

T S Lalitha v. C K Ravi Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T S Lalitha v. C K Ravi Kumar

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

Sri.Dhanavantari Rao Vs the Registrar General

Usharani Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Santosh Kumar, Vs the Deputy Director

Gopinatha B Vs the Manager

Sri. Veeresh Vs the Assistant Commissioner and Land Tribunal