Partly allowed

Smt. Divya W/O Tippesh Halli v. Smt. Jayamma W/O Patreppa Halli

Karnataka HC25 Jan 2019MFA/102069/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench allowed a miscellaneous first appeal filed by motor accident claimants against the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. While condoning the delay, the Court held that the Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation under conventional heads. The Court enhanced the compensation by awarding damages for loss of spousal and parental consortium, love an

What did the court decide?

The impugned Award is modified. The appellants are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs. 80,000/- carrying interest at 6% per annum to be deposited within four weeks.

Smt. Divya W/O Tippesh Halli Vs Smt. Jayamma W/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.102069 OF 2017 (MV)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. DIVYA W/O TIPPESH HALLI

¶11

@ HALLIDODDAMMANI

¶12

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,, OCC:HOUSEHOLD-587101

¶13

KUMAR MAHESH S/O TIPPESH HALLI @ HALLIDODDAMMANI

¶14

AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, MINOR

¶15

BOTH R/O HIREBADAWADAGI TQ:HUNGUND, DIST:BAGALKOT-587101

¶16

APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER APPELLANT

¶17

... APPELLANTS

¶18

(By Sri. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADV.)

¶19

AND:

¶20

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O PATREPPA HALLI @ HALLIDODDAMANI

¶21

¶22

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC:AGRL., R/O MORIGERI TQ:HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI DIST:BALLARI-583212

¶23

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR VRL LOGISTICS LTD N H-4, PB ROAD VARUR HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD-581207

¶24

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD HUBBALLI, DO, 2ND FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD-580029

¶25

... RESPONDENTS

¶26

(By Sri. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R2. R1. SERVED.

¶27

SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOF RO R3.)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.187 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUNGUND AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-X HUNGUND, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Though this appeal is listed for further orders and to consider regarding referring the matter to Lok Adalat, learned counsel for the respective parties submit that the controversy in this appeal is in a very narrow compass and therefore the appeal itself may be disposed off. In the circumstances, we have heard learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record.

¶33

This appeal is filed by the claimants being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.187 of 2014.

¶34

The parties would be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶35

¶36

Brief facts of the case are that

¶37

petitioner No.1 is wife, 2^nd petitioner is the son and petitioner No.3 is the mother of Tippesh, son of Patreppa Halli @ Hallidoddamani, who died in the accident. According to the petitioners deceased Tippesh was serving at NEKRTC, Hospet depot and was proceeding from Huvinahadagali to Bijapur on 28.09.2013. When the bus came near Belagal cross, at that time a lorry bearing registration No.KA-25/B-8355 came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bus from behind. Due to the said impact, Tippesh fell down from the bus and sustained multiple injuries and died before he was shifted to the hospital. It is contended that the deceased was earning Rs.14,010.25 per month as salary and Rs.4,00,000/per annum from agriculture. He was the only bread earner of the family and they have suffered shock on account of the untimely death of the deceased. Respondent

¶38

¶39

No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the vehicle are liable to pay the compensation. Hence, they filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

¶40

In response to the notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed objections separately.

¶41

Respondent No.1 denied the accident, age and income of the deceased Tippesh. It is contended that the driver of the bus i.e, the deceased was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and the accident had occurred due to his negligence. It is further contended that the driver of the lorry is a necessary party. Hence, respondent No.1 prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶42

Respondent No.2 filed objections

¶43

denying the mode of accident, age and income of the deceased. Since the driver of the bus-Tippesh

¶44

¶45

had not properly closed the door of the bus, the door opened and he fell down from his seat and died due to his own negligence. The driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and therefore there is violation of policy conditions. Hence, respondent No.2 prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶46

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶47

“1. Whether petitioners prove that, Tippesh s/o Patreppa Halli @ Hallidoddamani died in the road accident that occurred on 28.09.2013 at about 23.15 hours, at Belgal cross on N.H.50 Hungund-Bijapur road, due to the negligent Act of driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-25/B-8355?

¶48

2. Whether respondent No.1 proves that accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who was not in possession of valid and effective D.L.?

¶49

¶50

3. Whether petitioners are entitle for compensation? If so, how much? And from whom?

¶51

4. What order or decree?”

¶52

In order to prove their case, petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW-1 and one witness was examined as PW-2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P-14. On the other hand, respondents have neither let-in any evidence nor got marked any documents.

¶53

The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the

¶54

petition awarding compensation of Rs.28,83,611.68 paise with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶55

Being dissatisfied with the

¶56

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the

¶57

¶58

claimants have preferred this appeal seeking

¶59

enhancement.

¶60

It is contended that the Tribunal erred

¶61

in not awarding any compensation under the head of loss of consortium to the first petitioner who is the widow of the deceased. The Tribunal has also not awarded compensation on the head of loss of love and affection. Hence, learned counsel for the appellants prays to allow the appeal by modifying the impugned judgment and award by enhancing the compensation.

¶62

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 justify the impugned judgment and award and pray for dismissal of the appeal.

¶63

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

¶64

¶65

1. Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding just and proper compensation on the head of loss of consortium, towards transportation of dead body and funeral/obsequies expenses, towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate etc?

¶66

2. If so, what is the compensation to which the appellants are entitled to?

¶67

3. What order?

¶68

We answer points for consideration in

¶69

the affirmative.

¶70

The controversy involved in this appeal is only with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal mainly under conventional heads.

¶71

The law on the point of awarding compensation under the head of spousal consortium, parental consortium, loss of love and affection, transportation of dead body and funeral

¶72

¶73

expenses is well settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National

¶74

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 and in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd.(Supra) considering Pranay Sethi’s case stated supra, has defined the meaning of word ‘consortium’ at paragraph No.8.7 which reads as follows:

¶75

“8.7 A constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium.

¶76

In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium; and ‘filial consortium’.

¶77

The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance,

¶78

¶79

solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.

¶80

Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.

¶81

Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.”

¶82

Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child cause great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

¶83

¶84

Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.

¶85

The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.

¶86

Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicles accidents under the Act.

¶87

A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there

¶88

¶89

was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.

¶90

The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under ‘Loss of Consortium’ as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra)

¶91

In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000/each for loss of Filial Consortium.”

¶92

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision, we are of the considered view that the compensation is enhanced only towards conventional heads in the following manner:

¶93

Towards spousal consortium to appellant No.1 Rs.40,000/- is awarded. Towards loss of parental consortium, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to appellant No.2. Towards loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded to the third

¶94

¶95

claimant/respondent No.1-mother of the deceased. Towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- is awarded. Towards transportation of dead body and obsequies ceremony, Rs.15,000/is awarded. Thus, compensation on the aforesaid conventional heads is quantified at Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh and thirty thousand only) instead of Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the enhanced compensation is Rs.80,000/-.

¶96

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 12.03.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT-X, Hungund, in MVC No.187 of 2014 is modified. The appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.80,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization except for the period of 718 days of delay in filing the appeal as

¶97

¶98

noted at the time of condoning the delay in filing the appeal while disposing off I.A.No.1/2017.

¶99

The enhanced compensation shall be

¶100

deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶101

On deposit, the enhanced compensation shall be released in favour of appellants and respondent No.1 as per the directions of the Tribunal.

¶102

No costs.

¶103