Partly allowed

Smt. Baby Saraswathi v. Sri Chandrashekhar Prabhu

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2014MFA/46/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident compensation appeal, the High Court modified the Tribunal's award increasing the total compensation from 13.62 lakhs to 14.42 lakhs upon reassessing the deceased's monthly income and applying the correct multiplier based on the Sarla Verma decision.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part; the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 14,42,720/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization.

Smt. Baby Saraswathi Vs Sri Chandrashekhar Prabhu — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014

¶3

PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

¶7

M.F.A.NO.46/2013(MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. BABY SARASWATHI @ USHA UMESH NAYAK W/O UMESH NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O MANDARA, HARADY, PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK,D.K-574201. ... APPELLANT

¶10

(By Sri JAGADEESH G KUMBAR FOR CYRIL PRASAD PAIS ASSOCIATES)

¶11

AND

¶12

SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR PRABHU S/O GOPAL PRABHU,HOUSE NO.4/777, BADIYADKA, BADIYADKA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,PERADALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 581 342.

¶13

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KASARAGOD BRANCH, KASARAGOD , KERALA – 581 342.

¶14

¶15

SMT S R SAHANA PRASHANTHA NAYAK W/O LATE PRASHANTH NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O MANDARA, HARADY, PUITTUR KASBA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK,D.K-574201.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(By Sri P B RAJU, ADV. FOR R2, Notice to R1 dispensed with vide order dtd.9.1.2014, R3 served, unrepresented)

¶18

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.12.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.567/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, PUTTUR, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, N.K.PATIL J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 23.12.2010 passed in MVC No.567/2006 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puttur, D.K. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short), for enhancement of compensation.

¶23

The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs.13,62,560/- under different heads

¶24

¶25

with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit or its recovery, as against the claim of the claimants for a sum of Rs.35,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased – Prashanth Nayak, in the road traffic accident.

¶26

3. In brief, the facts of the case are:

¶27

The appellant is the mother of the deceased late Prashanth Nayak. The appellant, along with wife of the deceased, had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, which occurred on 24.10.2004 at about 09.00 a.m. when the deceased was proceeding on his motor bike bearing registration No.KA-05 EF-5807 along with a pillion rider from Badiadka side to Peria side on Badiadka – Puttur State Highway by riding his motor bike slowly, carefully and on the left side of the road. At that time, a TATA bus bearing registration No. KL-14 E- 1177 came from opposite direction, ie., from Peria side to Badiadka side, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed on wrong side, endangering the

¶28

¶29

human life and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the said impact, the deceased – Prashanth Nayak along with pillion rider fell down and deceased sustained grievous injuries to his legs, head and other parts of the body. Immediately, he was taken to Care-Well Hospital at kasaragod, but the doctors declared him brought dead.

¶30

It is the case of the appellant that she has spent reasonable amount towards funeral and obsequies ceremony and conveyance. Further, it is contended that the deceased was aged about 28 years and hale and healthy as on the date of accident. He was working as Production Supervisor in Autobags Crafted Seat Cover Company at Bangalore and drawing salary of Rs.13,500/pm, apart from Rs.6,000/- by way of overtime, in all Rs.19,500/- and looking after the welfare of the appellant and other family members, by contributing the same. He was the only earning member in the family. Due to his untimely death the appellant, who is mother of the deceased has lost love and affection, guidance, inspiration and security in life and it has also affected social, moral and economic condition of the family. Therefore,

¶31

¶32

appellant-mother and the wife of the deceased both were constrained to file claim petition against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-.

¶33

The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part. The Tribunal awarded loss of dependency by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,020/- and by giving 1/3^rd deductions and adopting multiplier of 16 awarded a sum of Rs.12,82,560/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.13,62,560/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Not being satisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal the appellant-mother of the deceased has presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation.

¶34

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company.

¶35

¶36

The submission of learned counsel Mr.

¶37

Jagadeesh G. Kumbar, appearing for the appellant at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier of 16 instead of 17, in the light of the decision of the Apex

¶38

Court in Sarla Verma’s case reported in 2009 ACJ 1298. Further, the Tribunal also erred in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs.10,020/- per month, which is on lower side. The accident is of the year 2004 and the deceased was aged about 28 years and hale and healthy as on the date of accident. He was working as Production Supervisor and drawing salary of Rs.13,500/pm, apart from Rs.6,000/- by way of overtime, in all Rs.19,500/- and looking after the welfare of the appellant and other family members by contributing the same. He was the only earning member in the family. These aspects are neither looked into nor considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, he prays to re-assess the reasonable income and award reasonable compensation by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶39

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

¶40

the 2^nd respondent-Insurer, inter alia, contended and

¶41

¶42

substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. It is passed after considering the oral and documentary evidence and interference by this Court is not called for.

¶43

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for consideration is:

¶44

“Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?”

¶45

It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the road traffic accident. Further, it is not in dispute that, the deceased was aged 28 years. He was hale and healthy at the time of accident and was working as Production Supervisor and drawing salary of Rs.13,500/-pm, apart from Rs.6,000/- by way of overtime, in all Rs.19,500/-. He was looking after the welfare of the appellant and other family members by contributing the same. To substantiate this the claimants have produced Exs.P7 & P8 – salary

¶46

¶47

certificates. But, the Tribunal has taken income of the deceased at Rs.10,020/- per month or Rs.1,20,240/- per annum.

¶48

The accident in question is of the year 2004. If we take income of the deceased at Rs.10,020/- per month and from this if we deduct 1/3^rd , which is Rs.3,340/- the balance comes to Rs.6,680/- per month, which can safely be taken as monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency. As the deceased was aged 28 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘17’, in the light of Sarla Verma’s case. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled towards loss of dependency at Rs.13,62,720/- (Rs.6,680/- x 12 X 17).

¶49

Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- under conventional heads, such as, towards loss of consortium, towards loss of love and affection, towards loss of estate and towards transportation and funeral expenses. The same is just and proper and does not call for interference and we accept the same.

¶50

¶51

Thus, the appellant-mother and 3^rd

¶52

respondent-wife of the deceased are entitled to total compensation in a sum of Rs.14,42,720/- as against Rs.13,62,560/-. There will be an enhancement in a sum of Rs.80,160/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. However, the appellant is not entitled to interest for the 634 days of delay in filing the instant appeal.

¶53

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 23.12.2010 passed in MVC No.567/2006 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puttur, D.K., is hereby modified. The total compensation payable comes to Rs.14,42,720/- as against Rs.13,62,560/- awarded by the Tribunal. There will be an enhancement of Rs.80,160/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶54

The 2^nd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.80,160/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, excluding interest for the delayed period of 634 days in

¶55

¶56

filing the appeal, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶57

The entire enhanced sum of Rs.80,160/- with interest shall be released in favour of the appellantmother and 3^rd respondent-wife of the deceased, in equal proportion immediately, on deposit by the 2^nd respondent.

¶58

Draw the award, accordingly.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

Smt. Baby Saraswathi v. Sri Chandrashekhar Prabhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Baby Saraswathi v. Sri Chandrashekhar Prabhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Vs State Bank of Patiala

Sri Shankar Vinay Achari Vs the Chief Traffic Manager

Smt. Shivalingamma, Vs Sri. Narasimhamurthy

Sri Munishamaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sunitha C W/O Sri Marigangaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Sri. S. Raju, Major