Partly allowed

Kuruba Hanumantha @ Hanumanthappa v. K Karamandhappa S/O K Bheemalingappa

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2018MFA/100392/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation awarded to dependants of a deceased pedestrian killed in a road accident. Revising the tribunal's assessment of notional income, the court awarded an additional Rs. 5,05,508/- by applying the 2017 Supreme Court guideline on future prospects and adjusting personal expenses, ordering the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

The insurance company directed to deposit Rs. 5,05,508/- of enhanced compensation with interest at 6% p.a.ただし, interest excluded for 624 days of appeal delay.

Kuruba Hanumantha @ Hanumanthappa Vs K Karamandhappa… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BELLUNKE

¶8

M.F.A. No.100392/2015 (MV)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

KURUBA HANUMANTHA @ HANUMANTHAPPA

¶11

@ SARIGADAGIHANUMANTHAPPA S/O GANGANNA,

¶12

AGE: 50 YEARS,

¶13

OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

¶14

NAGARAJ S/O HANUMANTHA @ HANUMANTHAPPA @ SARIGADAGIHANUMANTHAPPA,

¶15

AGE: 19 YEARS,

¶16

ERALAPPA S/O HANUMANTHA @ HANUMANTHAPPA @ SARIGADAGIHANUMANTHAPPA AGE: 18 YEARS,

¶17

MINOR LAKSHMI D/O HANUMANTHA @ HANUMANTHAPPA @ SARIGADAGIHANUMANTHAPPA

¶18

AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

¶19

MINOR HANUMANTHA S/O HANUMANTHA @ HANUMANTHAPPA @ SARIGADAGIHANUMANTHAPPA, AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

¶20

MINOR KUBERA S/O HANUMANTHA @ HANUMANTHAPPA @ SARIGADAGIHANUMANTHAPPA, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

¶21

¶22

MINOR GODLAPPA S/O HANUMANTHA @ HANUMANTHAPPA @ SARIGADAGIHANUMANTHAPPA, AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, APPELLANTS NO.4 TO 7 ARE MINORS R/BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN KURUBA HANUMANTHA @ HANUMANTHAPPA @ SARIGADAGIHANUMANTHAPPA

¶23

ALL ARE R/O.D.HIREHAL-VILLAGE, PRESENTLY R/O. HALKUNDI, BALLARI TQ & DT

¶24

..... APPELLANTS

¶25

(BY SRI MANJUNATHA G PATIL, ADV.)

¶26

AND

¶27

K KARAMANDHAPPA S/O K BHEEMALINGAPPA, HINDU, MAJOR DRIVER OF THE PRIVATE BUS BEARING REGD. NO.KA-16/B-1333, R/O.YALAPI-VILLAGE, BALLARI-TQ&DT

¶28

M P THIPPESWAMY S/O PUNYAKAMURTHY HINDU, MAJOR DRIVER OF THE PRIVATE BUS BEARING REGD. NO.KA-16/B-1333, R/O. MANJUNATHA MOTORS SERVICE, REDDYHALLI, GOPANAHALLI POST, CHALLAKERE-TALUK, CHITRADURGA-DT.

¶29

M/S.ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BALLARI

¶30

..... RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SMT ARUNA R DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR R3 NOTICE TO R-1 & R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶32

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1042/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL-IX, BELLARY, PARTLY

¶33

¶34

ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶35

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Though the appeal is listed for orders with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.

¶38

For the sake convenience, the parties shall be referred to, in terms of their status before the Tribunal.

¶39

The appellants were the claimants in M.V.C.No.1042/2012 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for the sake of convenience). By judgment and award dated 15.01.2013, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.6,56,492/- to the claimants by directing the insurance company to satisfy the award. Not

¶40

¶41

being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

¶42

Briefly stated, the facts are, on

¶43

13.08.2012, Hanamakka @ Gangamma along with her son claimant No.7 and other relatives were traveling in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-16/B-4573 on Ballari-Bengaluru Road. After they reached Lingampalli cross road at about 8.30 a.m., respondent No.1, driver of a private bus bearing registration No.KA16/B-1333, came from the Ballari side, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto rickshaw. As a result, the auto rickshaw turtled and Hanumakka sustained grievous injuries to limbs and other parts. She died on her way to VIMS Hospital. Postmortem was conducted. It is averred that the deceased was aged 38 years and earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. by doing coolie work as an unskilled labour. Her husband and minor

¶44

¶45

children filed the claim petition seeking

¶46

compensation on account of death of the bread earner of the family.

¶47

In response to the service of notice by the Tribunal, owner of the bus did not appear and was placed ex parte . The insurance company appeared and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the vehicle was not holding any valid and effective driving licence and that the claim petition ought to be dismissed.

¶48

Respondent No.1 contended that he was the driver of the lorry which belongs to respondent No.2. That the driver of the auto rickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and without any indication, suddenly applied break. As a result, the bus was forced to hit the auto rickshaw. That there is no liability to pay

¶49

compensation to the claimants and if fastened, the

¶50

¶51

insurance company is responsible for the same. He sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶52

On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its

¶53

consideration:

¶54

1. Whether petitioners prove that, accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.1 being the driver of Private Bus bearing registration No.KA/16B 1333, which took place on 13.08.2012, at about 8.30 a.m., on Bellary-Bangalore Road, dashed to the Auto-Rickshaw from hind side, as a result, Smt.Hanumakka @ Gangamma, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on the way to VIMS Hospital, Bellari?

¶55

2. Whether respondent No.3 Insurance Company proves that R-1 was not holding valid and effective Driving Licence to drive such category of vehicle as on the date of accident?

¶56

¶57

3. Whether petitioners prove that they are entitled to get compensation and from whom?

¶58

4. What award or order?”

¶59

In support of their case, first claimant examined himself as PW-1. He produced six documents which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-6, while the copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.R-1.

¶60

On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2 in the negative, issue No.3 partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.6,56,492/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. Not being satisfied with the award, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

¶61

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent-

¶62

¶63

insurance company and perused the material

¶64

available on record.

¶65

The grievance of the appellants is

¶66

regarding the award of compensation on the head of ‘loss of dependency’. Appellants’ counsel submits that the accident took place in the year 2012. The deceased Hanumakka was working as a coolie and earning monthly income above Rs.8000/- but the Tribunal has assessed the notional annual income at Rs.36,000/-, which is on the lower side. He submits that the notional monthly income ought to have been assessed at Rs.6,500/- at least. He further submits that if 30% future prospects is added to the monthly income, the award of compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ would be enhanced. He submits that other conventional heads namely loss of love and affection, loss of estate, expenditure towards the transportation of dead body and

¶67

¶68

funeral expenses is on the lower side. No award of compensation under the heard ‘loss of consortium’ has been awarded. Therefore, this Court may enhance the compensation.

¶69

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company supported the

¶70

judgment and award and contended that the award is just and proper. This appeal would not call for any interference as it is devoid of any merit.

¶71

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the following points would arise for our consideration:

¶72

1. “Whether the appellants are entitled to additional compensation?

¶73

2. What order?”

¶74

The fact that Hanumakka died in a road traffic accident on 13.08.2012 on Ballari-

¶75

Bengaluru Rood has been established by the claimants. The only controversy in this appeal is

¶76

¶77

regarding additional compensation. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,56,492/as compensation to the claimants on the following heads.

¶78

1. Loss of Dependency Rs.6,28,992/2. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 10,000/3. Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/4. Towards Transportation of Dead Body and Funeral Expenses Rs. 7,500/__________ Total_ Rs.6,56,492/-

¶79

The Tribunal has assessed the notional

¶80

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,600/-

¶81

which we think is on the lower side. Even if deceased Hanumakka was an unskilled labour, the notional monthly income ought to have been assessed at Rs.6,500/- at least. Taking the said sum as notional monthly income and keeping in mind the fact that the deceased was aged 45 years, 25% of the notional income is to be added towards future prospects in view of the latest dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi

¶82

¶83

and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 as the deceased Hanumakka was a coolie. Further there are seven claimants, 1/5^th of the said amount will have to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased on the basis of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 . The compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ will have to be worked out as under: Rs.6,500+25%(towards future prospects)= Rs.8,125/-

¶84

1/5^th of the said amount is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the balance is Rs.6,500/-.

¶85

Rs.6,500x12x14 (multiplier)= 10,92,000/-

¶86

To this, we add Rs.70,000/towards conventional heads comprising of loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses.

¶87

¶88

Thus, the total compensation would be Rs.11,62,000/-. As such, enhanced compensation would be Rs.5,05,508/-.

¶89

The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till the date of realization except for the period of delay in filing the appeal i.e., 624 days. The insurance company to deposit the enhanced compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶90

Since the claimants are the husband and children of the deceased Hanumakka, the enhanced compensation shall be apportioned in the ratio of 40:10:10:10:10:10:10 as has been done by the Tribunal.

¶91

The appellant No.1-husband of the deceased shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in any Nationalized Bank or Post Office for an initial

¶92

¶93

period of five years. He shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. The

¶94

balance amount shall be released to him.

¶95

The enhanced compensation awarded to other claimants shall be released to them as we notice that all of them have become major and they may require the said amount for their educational or other beneficial expenditure.

¶96

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

¶97

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, office is directed to return LCR to the Tribunal forthwith so as to enable the appellants to receive the enhanced compensation.

¶98

Sd/JUDGE

¶99

Sd/JUDGE

¶100

Naa

Kuruba Hanumantha @ Hanumanthappa v. K Karamandhappa S/O K Bheemalingappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuruba Hanumantha @ Hanumanthappa v. K Karamandhappa S/O K Bheemalingappa

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

Ghishibhai W/O Champalal Shah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. D. P. Mangarsi S/O. Parameshwwar Vs the State of Karnataka

T. Krishna Puranik Vs the State of Karnataka

The Union of India Vs Ajjappa

Sharanappa S/O Rayappa Jadav, Vs Arjunappa S/O Hanumantappa Babar @ Arer

Ramakka Vs Samiullah