Karnataka High Court
Smt Shivamma vs M/S United India Insurance Co Ltd on 9 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36669
MFA No. 3473 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3473 OF 2022(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHIVAMMA
W/O K. RAVI KUMAR,
D/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
2. KUM. AMRUTHA R.,
D/O K. RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 07 YEARS,
3. MASTER TANMAY R.,
S/O K RAVI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 05 YEARS,
APPELLANTS NOS. 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS
REP BY THEIR MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. SHIVAMMA 1ST APPELLANT,
Digitally signed by 4. SMT JAYAMMA
AASEEFA PARVEEN
Location: HIGH W/O KEMPANNA,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI,
BYLANARASAPURA, HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 122.
AND ALSO RESIDENT AT
NO. 129, KOWDENAHALLI,
RAMMURTHYNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 016.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K. T., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36669
MFA No. 3473 of 2022
AND:
1. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MOTOR CLAIMS HUB,
NO. 18, 6TH FLOOR,
NEW KRUSHI BHAVAN,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
2. MR. SAFAN KHAN,
S/O SALEEM KHAN, NO.55, VANNARPET,
VALARIAMMAN TEMPLE STREET,
VIVEKNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 047.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2- SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.12.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2389/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIV ACMM, MEMBER, MACT,
BENGALURU, (SCCH-20), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36669
MFA No. 3473 of 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Gurudev Prasad.K.T. learned counsel for
the appellants and Sri.Y.K.Sheshagiri Rao learned counsel who
represents Sri. Benni Ravish Chandrashekar learned counsel on
record for the respondent No.1 Insurance company.
2. Disputing the validity of the order that is rendered
by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in MVC
No.2389/2019 dated 12.11.2019, the claimants therein are
before this Court by way of appeal.
3. Sri.Gurudev Prasad K.T. learned counsel for
the appellants submits that appellant No.1 is the wife,
appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children and appellant
No.4 is the mother of the deceased Ravi Kumar who died in a
road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2019. The
deceased Ravi Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'
for brevity) was earning Rs.1,000/- per day as a Mason and
was contributing his entire earning towards welfare of the
appellants. The appellants lost the only earning member in the
family. However, though the appellants projected a claim for
NC: 2024:KHC:36669
Rs.30,00,000/-, the Tribunal through the impugned order
awarded a sum of Rs.17,71,000/- only as compensation and
therefore, the appellants are before this Court. Learned counsel
also states that the accident occurred in the year 2019 and for
the relevant period, the Karnataka State Legal Authorities is
taking the notional income as Rs.14,000/- per month for
settlement of claims and atleast the said figure should have
been considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel also states
that the amount awarded as compensation under other heads
is also grossly low. On the other hand, Sri.Y.K.Sheshagiri Rao
representing respondent No.1 Insurance Company states that
the amount awarded as compensation by the Tribunal is
reasonable. However, learned counsel did not raise any
objection for taking the notional income as Rs.14,000/- per
month as sought for by the learned counsel for the appellants.
Also the said figure is reasonable.
4. Therefore, taking the notional income as
Rs.14,000/- per month, adding 40% of the actual earnings
towards future prospects, the age of the deceased being 36
years by the date of accident, deducting 1/4th of the earnings
towards personal and living expenses which the deceased
NC: 2024:KHC:36669
would have incurred for himself had he been alive and applying
the appropriate multiplier '15' as per the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another reported in AIR 2009 SC
3104, the loss of dependency is calculated as under:
Amount
Description
In Rs.
Notional monthly Income 14,000-00
Annual Income (14,000X12) 1,68,000-00
Add 40% towards future
2,35,200-00
prospects (1,68,000+40%)
Deduct 1/4th of the actual earnings
towards personal and living 1,76,400-00
expenses
Applying appropriate multiplier '15' 26,46,000-00
5. Thus, the compensation which the appellants are
entitled to under the head loss of dependency comes to
Rs.26,46,000/-. Together with the said amount, the appellants
are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Appellant No.1 being the
wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
spousal consortium. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 being the children of
the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
parental consortium. Appellant No.4 being the mother of the
NC: 2024:KHC:36669
deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial
consortium. Thus, the compensation which the appellants
are entitled to under different heads is as under:
Amount
Sl No. Compensation
in Rs.
1 Loss of dependency 26,46,000-00
2 Funeral expenses 15,000-00
3 Loss of estate 15,000-00
4 Loss of spousal consortium 40,000-00
5 Loss of parental consortium 40,000-00
6 Loss of filial consortium 40,000-00
Total 27,96,000-00
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is
disposed of with the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore through orders
in MVC No.2389/2019, dated 12.11.2019 is
enhanced from Rs.17,71,000/- to Rs.27,96,000/-.
(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of deposit.
NC: 2024:KHC:36669
(iv) Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(v) Out of the enhanced sum, the appellants are
entitled to equal share.
(vi) Appellant Nos.1 and 4 are permitted to withdraw
their respective shares immediately.
(vii) The amount that fell to the share of appellant Nos.2
and 3 along with interest shall be kept in fixed
deposit in any nationalised bank till they attain the
age of majority.
(viii) On their attaining the age of majority, they are
permitted to withdraw the entire sum along with
accrued interest.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
DS
