Smt Manjula Vs Sri Srinivas B v

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.2, 59HT CROSS ROAD, GOLDEN HEIGHT COMPLEX, 4TH BLOCK, 6TH FLOOR BANGALORE - 560 010 (POLICY NO. 3373/00362089/000/03 VALID FROM 16/04/2015 TO 15/04/2016)

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶36

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.410//2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, MALUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶37

3 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:13465 MFA No. 6284 of 2018

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶43

This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 06.04.2017 passed in MVC No.410/2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Malur.

¶44

Sri. Suresh M., learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in assessing the income of the deceased. The award of compensation on all other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, he seeks to reassess the same by allowing the appeal.

¶45

Per contra , Sri. B.Pradeep., learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal considering the evidence on record has awarded just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶46

4 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:13465 MFA No. 6284 of 2018

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

It is not in dispute that one Sri. Chikkamuniswami met with a road accident on 20.07.2015, sustained grievous injuries and thereafter he succumbed to the injuries. Records indicates that the deceased was aged about 40 years and claim to have been working as a Manager in Ramesh Wine Store Masthi and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. It is not in dispute that in support of his income and vocation, he has not produced any evidence. In the absence of the same, this Court reassessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. To the aforesaid

¶53

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13465 MFA No. 6284 of 2018

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

income, 25% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited

¶56

vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16

¶57

SCC 680 . Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.11,250/-. The deceased was aged about 40 years. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be '15'. The claimants are wife, children and mother of the deceased. Hence, appropriate deduction towards the personal and living expenses would be 1/4^th . Hence, the ' loss of dependency' is assessed as under:

¶58

Rs.9,000 +25%= 11,250/-

¶59

Rs.11,250 x 3/4 x 12 x 15 = Rs.15,18,750/-

¶60

The claimants are entitled to compensation under the conventional head which is reassessed as under the head of 'loss of consortium' at the rate of Rs.40,000/- with 10% escalation each (Rs.40,000 + 10%=Rs.44,000). Hence, the ' loss of consortium' comes to Rs.1,76,000/- (Rs.44,000 x 4). The claimants are entitled for the compensation under the head

¶61

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13465 MFA No. 6284 of 2018

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

of 'loss of estate' at Rs.16,500 /- which includes 10% escalation. Further, a sum of Rs.16,500/- is granted towards

¶64

the ' Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses' .

¶65

Thus, the appellant/claimant would be entitled to the modified compensation as under:

¶66

HEADS	AMOUNT
	(in Rs.)
Loss of dependency	15,18,750/-
Loss of consortium	1,76,000/-
Transportation of dead body & funeral	16,500/-
expenses
Loss of estate	16,500/-
Total	17,27,750/-

¶67

Thus, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled to a total

¶68

compensation of Rs.17,27,750 /- as against Rs.9,90,000/-

¶69

awarded by the Tribunal.

¶70

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

i) Appeal is allowed in part .

¶73

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:13465 MFA No. 6284 of 2018

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 06.04.2017 passed by the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.17,27,750/- as against Rs.9,90,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶76

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

¶77

iv) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶78

v) The entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant/claimant.

¶79

vi) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶80

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶81

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

¶82

VS

Smt Manjula v. Sri Srinivas B v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Manjula v. Sri Srinivas B v

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 R Srinivas Vs Smt Rajashree

Shashank Y P Vs Dileep J P

Sri Malledevirappa Vs Sri Sadashiva

Jayamma Vs K Shekarappa

Sri Sumanth R Vs Icici Lombard General

Nagaraj S P Vs Pranesh v Managooli