Partly allowed

Chakali Gowramma W/O Late Ramachandra v. a. Ravindra Kumar S/O Yogeswara Reddy

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2019MFA/101894/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award filed by deceased's relatives seeking enhancement of compensation. Court upheld loss of dependency calculation but enhanced head compensation for consortium and estate based on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.8,15,120 to Rs.9,30,120 with 7% interest from date of claim. Enhanced amount deposited in windfall account of widow.

Chakali Gowramma W/O Late Ramachandra Vs a. Ravindra… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.

¶7

M.F.A.NO.101894/2014 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SMT.CHAKALI GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,

¶10

CHAKALI MALLI @ C CHINNAMALLA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA AGE: 26 YEARS,

¶11

CHAKALI HANUMANTHA RAYUDU, LATE RAMACHANDRA, AGE: 18 YEARS,

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF YATAKALLU VILLAGE, SETTUR MANDLAM, KALYANDURGA TALUKA, AND NOW RESIDING AT C/O M DHANUNJAYA KRISHNA NAGAR CAMP, KOLAGAL VILLAGE IN BELLARY TALUKA AND DISTRICT

¶13

... APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND :

¶16

A. RAVINDRA KUMAR, S/O YOGESWARA REDDY, OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO.KA-34/6109,

¶17

¶18

R/O. D NO.14/5, MANARI STREET, TANKBUND ROAD, BELLARY.

¶19

THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIENCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SORRENTO BULDING, NO.6, FIRST FLOOR, LETTICE BRIDGE ROAD, ADIYAR IN CHENNAI.

¶20

S. SHAREEF AHAMED, S/O. A. ABDUL RAHIMAN AGE:35 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE LORRY, BEARING REGN. NO.KA 34/6109 R/O. D.NO.50-746-3-1, ENDOWENT COLONY, ECI, KURNOOL : A.P.

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(NOTICE TO R1 & R3 : DISPENSED WITH) (BY SRI S.S.JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶23

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.04.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.325/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, AT BELLARY, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, BELLUNKE A.S. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Though this appeal is listed to consider the application filed for seeking transfer of lower

¶27

¶28

Court records to the Tribunal, with the consent of learned counsel on both the sides, it is heard finally.

¶29

This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation by assailing the judgment and award passed in

¶30

MVC.No.325/2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, at Ballari.

¶31

For the sake of convenience, the parties

¶32

are referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.

¶33

Briefly stated the facts are that, on 10.08.2008 at about 11.00 a.m., the husband of

¶34

the first petitioner/claimant namely Sri Chakali Ramachandrappa was proceeding from his house to Rayadurga for attending coolie work, when he was proceeding near Yatakallu check post, at that time a Lorry bearing registration No.KA.34/6109 driven by first respondent in a rash and negligent

¶35

¶36

manner dashed Chakali Ramachandrappa. As a result he fell down and thereafter the said lorry ran over his right leg, due to which he sustained grievous fractures and injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kalyanadurga where he succumbed to the said injuries in the hospital while under treatment. Prior to the accident, deceased Chakali Ramachandrappa was hale and healthy. At the time of accident, he was aged about 40 years, working as Baildar, earning Rs.12,000/per month. According to the claimants, the deceased was contributing his entire earnings towards the maintenance of his family. Petitioner No.1 being his wife, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 the children of the deceased Chakali Ramachandrappa were totally depending upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, petitioners filed the claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of deceased Chakali

¶37

¶38

Ramachandrappa from respondents No.1 to 3 – driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶39

In response to the service of notice by the Tribunal, the first and second respondents had not appeared and they were placed ex-parte Respondent No.3 insurer of the offending vehicle appeared through his counsel and filed statement of objections.

¶40

Respondent No.3 insurer of the

¶41

offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA.34/6109, contended that, respondent No.1, the driver of the lorry had violated the terms and conditions of the policy, as he has no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. He specifically contended that, the claim

¶42

was highly exorbitant, fanciful and not tenable under law. The insurer was permitted to take all the defences available to the insured under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 besides

¶43

¶44

seeking protection under Sections 147 and 149 of the said Act and therefore he is not liable to satisfy the compensation. Accordingly, insurer prayed to dismiss the petition against him.

¶45

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

¶46

“1. Whether petitioners prove the death of one Chakali Ramachandrappa S/o Late Chakali Jayanna in RTA that was occurred on 10.08.2008 at about 11 AM near Yatakallu village check post, due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing registration No.KA.34/6109 by first respondent?

¶47

2. Whether third respondent proves that, first respondent was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle as on the date of accident?

¶48

3. Whether petitioners are entitle for compensation as prayed for?

¶49

What order or an award?”

¶50

¶51

In support of the contentions of the

¶52

claimants, petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2 and produced 9 documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.9. On the other hand, Ex.R1/copy of insurance policy was marked on behalf of respondent NO.3, but no oral evidence was adduced on their behalf.

¶53

On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered Issue No.1 in the

¶54

affirmative, issue No.2 in the negative and issue No.3 partly in the affirmative by awarding compensation of Rs.8,15,120/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of its realization. Not being satisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

¶55

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

¶56

¶57

insurance company and perused the material available on record.

¶58

The grievance of the appellants is that, the deceased Chakali Ramachandrappa was

¶59

earning Rs.12,000/- per month from Baildar work. But the Tribunal without considering the same, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. The compensation awarded towards loss of estate is meager. The Tribunal had erred in awarding Rs.10,000/towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses without considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) (Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others). Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants prayed for enhancement of compensation and interest by allowing this appeal.

¶60

¶61

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance company contended that the award is just and proper. This appeal would not call for any interference and sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶62

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the aspect regarding rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle and the liability of respondents to satisfy the award in question are not in dispute. Therefore, the points that would arise for our consideration are as follows:

¶63

“1. Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? If yes, what is the quantum to which they are entitled to?

¶64

2. What order?”

¶65

So far as the liability of the third respondent is concerned, the same is not in dispute. The respondent insurance company has

¶66

¶67

not filed any cross objection on the point of its liability to satisfy the award quantum or on the rash and negligent act on the part of the first respondent. No specific grounds are urged before the Tribunal or this Court seriously, with regard to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the first and second respondents, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. No rebuttal evidence has been led by any of the respondents.

¶68

Therefore, we have reconsidered the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal and decided the legality and correctness of the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶69

Since the age of the deceased Chakali Ramachandrappa was 40 years as on the date of accident, the multiplier applicable is ‘15’. Age of the deceased based on Ex.P.4-Postmortem Report and Ex.P.5-Inquest Panchanama. The Tribunal has

¶70

¶71

relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2012 SC 2185 (Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others) . In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, in case of death of a self employed person who is employed on a fixed salary it would be reasonable to say that such a person would get approximately 30% raise in income and the same has to be considered towards his future prospects and applied for the calculation of compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased having regard to the age and avocation at Rs.5,000/- per month. After adding 30% towards his future prospects, the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.6,500/-. Since there were three dependents in his family, it deducted 1/3^rd towards personal expenses and net income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.4,334/- per month. It was multiplied by 12 and “15” multiplier and

¶72

¶73

the loss of dependency of the deceased as determined by the Tribunal is Rs.7,80,120/-. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the income assessed by the Tribunal is based on sound reasoning and material evidence available on record. Therefore, it would not call for any interference of this Court.

¶74

However, we find that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, which are all on the lower side.

¶75

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others) , we are inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of

¶76

¶77

loss of consortium to the first petitioner,

¶78

Rs.40,000/- each to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 under the head of loss of parental consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expense and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The appellants - claimants are entitled total compensation as follows:

¶79

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Towardsloss ofdependency.	7,80,120/-
2	Loss of consortium to the first petitioner – wife ofthe deceased.	40,000/-
3	Loss of consortium to petitioner
	Nos.2and 3 (40,000x2=80,000)	80,000/-
4	Towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses.	15,000/-
5	Towardsloss ofestate	15,000/-
	Total	9,30,120/-

¶80

Hence, for the above said reasons we answer point No.1 raised for determination partly in the affirmative. We hold that the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as determined above.

¶81

¶82