Umadevi and Others Vs. Chandrashekharaiah and Others

Umadevi and Others vs Chandrashekharaiah and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Dec 15, 2011

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/934932

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/934932
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: S.N. Satyanarayana
Decided On: Dec 15, 2011
Case Number: Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 10463 of 2008 (MV)
Subject: Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Motor Vehicles

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Umadevi and Others

Advocate For the Petitioners: Shripad V Shastri, Advocates. For the Respondents: V. Narayanaswamy, Advocate.

Respondent

Chandrashekharaiah and Others

Excerpt

s.n. sathyanarayana, j: 1. claimants in mvc no.459/2001 on the file of the mact, bangalore rural district, bangalore has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded therein. the fact that claimant nos. 1 to 4 are respectively widow and children of deceased ramaiah is not in dispute. it is further not in dispute deceased ramaiah died in a motor accident, which took place while he was travelling in maxi cab bearing registration no. ka-13/3101 which met with an accident due to collision with another lorry bearing no. ap-13/t-6937. in the said accident, alongwith deceased ramaiah other inmates of maxi cab also died. 2. after the death of ramaiah, his widow and children filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation for his death in said accident and the claim petition was filed against the owner and insurer of maxi cab in which deceased ramaiah was travelling and also against the owner and driver of lorry which was involved in the said accident. the tribunal clubbed the claim petition filed by the claimants alongwith claim petitions filed by the legal representatives of other deceased persons and also injured persons in the said accident and all the claim petitions were disposed recording common evidence. 3. so far as the claim petition filed by the claimants are concerned, the same was partially allowed awarding compensation to the claimants in a sum of rs. 3,37,000/- payable with interest at 6% p.m. from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the entire amount. to arrive at the above compensation, the tribunal took the income of the deceased ramaiah, a tailor by profession at rs.3,000/- p.m. in the absent of acceptable evidence regarding his avocation and income and further while calculating loss of dependency the tribunal has taken only 1/3rd of the notional income of the deceased towards loss of dependency to the family and for the purpose of calculating the compensation, multiplier of ‘13’ was applied,.....

Full Judgment

S.N. SATHYANARAYANA, J:

1. Claimants in MVC No.459/2001 on the file of the MACT, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded therein. The fact that claimant Nos. 1 to 4 are respectively widow and children of deceased Ramaiah is not in dispute. It is further not in dispute deceased Ramaiah died in a motor accident, which took place while he was travelling in Maxi cab bearing registration No. KA-13/3101 which met with an accident due to collision with another lorry bearing No. AP-13/T-6937. In the said accident, alongwith deceased Ramaiah other inmates of Maxi cab also died.

2. After the death of Ramaiah, his widow and children filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation for his death in said accident and the claim petition was filed against the owner and insurer of Maxi cab in which deceased Ramaiah was travelling and also against the owner and driver of lorry which was involved in the said accident. The Tribunal clubbed the claim petition filed by the claimants alongwith claim petitions filed by the legal representatives of other deceased persons and also injured persons in the said accident and all the claim petitions were disposed recording common evidence.

3. So far as the claim petition filed by the claimants are concerned, the same was partially allowed awarding compensation to the claimants in a sum of Rs. 3,37,000/- payable with interest at 6% p.m. from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the entire amount. To arrive at the above compensation, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased Ramaiah, a tailor by profession at Rs.3,000/- p.m. in the absent of acceptable evidence regarding his avocation and income and further while calculating loss of dependency the Tribunal has taken only 1/3^rd of the notional income of the deceased towards loss of dependency to the family and for the purpose of calculating the compensation, multiplier of ‘13’ was applied, considering the age of the deceased as 45 years at the time of accident by following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of GulamKhader and Another Vs United India Insurance company Limited and Another reported in ILR 2000 Kar 4416:(2000 (3) KCCR 2241) and further the Tribunal also awarded in all a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the claimants under special damages i.e, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- --towards loss of consortium to the widow and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the judgement impugned. On going through the same, it is seen that the Tribunal has taken notional income of the deceased Ramaiah at Rs.3000/- which is proper. But, while considering loss of dependency, the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3^rd from his income towards his personal expenses, which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Apex. Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, wherein it is held that, the correct multiplier that is required to be taken in case of death of persons aged between 41-45 years was ‘14’ and that the deductions that is required to be calculated in cases where there are four dependents, deduction should be th and not 1/3^rd as taken by the Tribunal. These are the two errors, which are required to be rectified in this appeal.

5. Accordingly, the compensation which is awarded to the claimants is required to be reassessed keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the matter of SarlaVerma’s case. Accordingly, in the instant case, claimants would be entitled to compensation under the head loss of dependency at Rs.3,000 x = 2,250 x12 x 14 = Rs.3,78,000/- in addition to this , the claimants is also entitled to special damages in all in a sum of Rs.40,000/- as against compensation awarded by the Tribunal which is required to be calculated as under:

a. loss of estate Rs.10,000

b. Loss of Consortium to widow Rs.10,000

c. Loss of love and affection to

claimant Nos. 2,3 and 4 Rs.15,000

d. Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000 --------------

Rs.40,000

--------------

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and compensation is enhanced from Rs.3, 37,000/- to Rs. 4, 18,000/-. The Claimants would be entitled to enhance compensation of Rs. 81,000/- payable with interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the entire amount.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2011 Same Parties Umadevi and Others vs Chandrashekharaiah and Others Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge S.N. Satyanarayana