High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 01 KAR CK 0076

Siddalaiahnavar Doddasannappa, Sanna Bharamavva, Kumari Umadevi and Kumari Devi vs Hassain, Baba Fakurdin Niyazi and The Manager Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 16 January 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
C. R. Kumaraswamy, J
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 21801 of 2011 MV

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 386 words

C. R. Kumaraswamy, J.—This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed u/s 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,. 1988 against the judgment and award dated 08.10.2010 passed in MVC No. 566/2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC-cum-Member, MACT-IV, Hospet, partly allowing the claim petition and seeking for enhancement of compensation. With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, this matter was heard on merits. The materials placed before this Court is sufficient to dispose of this case at this stage.

2.

This is a claim petition filed u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying for compensation for the death of one Parashuram. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,99,000/- taking into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month and applying multiplier of ''11''.

3.

The main grievance of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the multiplier adopted by the Claims Tribunal is not proper. The multiplier that has to be adopted by the Claims Tribunal should be in conformity with the age of the deceased and not with the age of the claimants.

4.

The maximum income that can be assessed u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is Rs. 3,333/-, out of which 1/3rd has to be deducted. In the instant case, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,99,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.

5.

The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurance company submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reasonable. However, he submits that the compensation may be slightly increased.

6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submission of learned counsel for both sides, in my view, a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded with interest at 6% per annum to the claimants in addition to already awarded by the Tribunal. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following:-

ORDER

1.

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part.

2.

A further sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded with interest at 6% p.a. to the claimants. The respondent No. 3-Insurance Company shall pay this sum in addition to already awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

3.

The judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal is modified accordingly.