Smt. Vani Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., GOLDEN HEIGHTS 4TH FLOOR NO.1/2 59TH CROSS 4TH M BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010 REP BY ITS MANAGER.

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15761 M.F.A. No.3951/2020

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SRI. NAGARAJU .E S/O LATE ERA CHENNAPPA MAJOR R/AT NO.85, BUKKASAGARA VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-560 083

¶19

&RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY MR. MAHESWARA S, AND MR. B. PRADEEP, ADVS., FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.2955/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-5, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the

¶26

judgment and award dated 01.10.2019 passed in MVC No.2955/2019 by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru

¶27

(SCCH-5) (for short, 8Tribunal9).

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15761 M.F.A. No.3951/2020

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with

¶31

the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶32

Miss Nitya, learned counsel for Sri.Prakash M.H., learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m. by ignoring the fact that the deceased was an agriculturalist having 10 acres of agricultural land and used to earn more than Rs.15,000/p.m. Hence, he seeks to re-assess the income of the deceased by allowing the appeal.

¶33

Per contra , Sri.Maheswara S., learned counsel for Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that no evidence was placed before the Tribunal with regard to the income and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income and the

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15761 M.F.A. No.3951/2020

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

compensation awarded is just and proper. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is to be noticed that the wife and the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking the compensation. Admittedly, no evidence was placed before the Tribunal to substantiate the income of the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m. I am of the considered view that in the absence of any proof, the income of the deceased is required to be re-assessed at Rs.14,000/p.m. placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. After re-assessing the income of the deceased, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency would be as under:

¶38

Rs.14,000 + 40% x 12 x 16 - 1/3 = Rs.25,08,800/-

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15761 M.F.A. No.3951/2020

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on

¶42

other heads remains unaltered. Thus, the appellants

¶43

would be entitled to the modified compensation as under:

¶44

HEADS	AMOUNT
	(in Rs.)
Loss of dependency	28,08,800
Loss of consortium (40,000 x 3)	1,20,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Funeral expenses	15,000
Total	29,58,800

¶45

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶46

following

¶47

ORDER

¶48

a) The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶49

b) The impugned judgment and award dated 01.10.2019 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.2955/2019 is modified to an extent that the appellants-claimants would be entitled to the total compensation of Rs.29,58,800/-

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15761 M.F.A. No.3951/2020

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

as against Rs.19,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶53

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

¶54

d) The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶55

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

¶56

f) Registry shall transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶57

g) Draw the modified award accordingly.

¶58

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶59

RV/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12

Smt. Vani v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vani v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance

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 S. Ramesh Vs Sri v Srinivasa

Smt Nagarathna Raju Vs the Proprietor

Surabi Vs M. Naveen Kumar

Sri. Swamy C.N. Vs Mr. Banusurya

Sri Ramesh Vs K.P. Saidu

Sri Harish Kumar Vs Sri Ravi Naik