Partly allowed

Smt.Vasuravva W/O Late Bheemappa v. Rushabendra S/O Veerabhadrappa

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2020MFA/100479/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award sought enhancement of compensation. The High Court modified the award, applying a higher multiplier and adding future prospects to calculation, resulting in total compensation of Rs. 11,28,400. The judgment grants relief to the heirs.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to pay Rs. 11,28,400 with 7% interest, with 90% to mother and 10% to brother.

Smt.Vasuravva W/O Late Bheemappa Vs Rushabendra S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN

¶5

M.F.A.NO.100479/2016 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.VASURAVVA W/O LATE BHEEMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE.

¶8

DURGAPPA S/O LATE BHEEMAPPA GOLLARA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE.

¶9

BOTH ARE R/O SHAMSHI VILLAGE IN KUNDAGOLA TALUKA PRESENTLY R/O AUTO NAGAR, ANANTHAPUR ROAD, BALLARI.

¶10

... APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI MANJUNATH S.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

RUSHABENDRA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE TIPPER LORRY BEARING REG.NO.KA.35/A-4835, R/O PAPINAYAKANAHALLI IN HOSAPETE TALUKA OF BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶14

VENKATESH S/O SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OWNER OF THE TIPPER LORRY BEARING REG.NO.KA.35/A-4835, R/O HOUSE NO.170, WARD NO.12,

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

DALMIA QUARTERS, PAPINAYAKANAHALLI IN HOSAPETE TALUKA OF BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶17

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BALLARI.

¶18

SAIBANNA S/O PARASAPPA KATTAMANI, AGE : 24 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE HYWA TIPPER LORRY BEARING REGN.NO.KA.37/A.186, R/O HOSALLI VILLAGE IN KOPPAL DISTRICT.

¶19

SMT.SHASHIKALA W/O CHANDRASHEKARACHARYA, PATTAR, AGE : 33 YEARS, OWNER OF THE HYWA TIPPER, LORRY BEARING REGN.NO.KA.37/A.186, R/O HOSALLI VILLAGE IN KOPPAL DISTRICT.

¶20

M/S SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NO.E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA IN JAIPUR IN RAJASTHAN STATE. ... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI S.K.KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R.3) (BY SRI SURESH S.GUNDI ADVOCATE FOR R.6) (NOTICE TO R.1, 2, 4 & 5 DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.829/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XII, AT BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, M. I. ARUN, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated

¶27

16.09.2015 passed in M.V.C.No.829/2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Ballari,

¶28

(“Tribunal” for short) the petitioners therein have preferred this appeal.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that on 23.07.2013 at about 11.30 p.m., on Koppal-Hosapet Road near Jayashree Motors in Bevinahalli village, a Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA.37/A.186 had stopped due to mechanical defects. Its driver the deceased Ananda @ Hanumantha was repairing the said Lorry. At that time, another Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA.35/A.4835 came from Koppal side and dashed against stationed lorry and it resulted in the death of Ananda.

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

Both the Tipper Lorries were duly insured.

¶32

The Lorry bearing registration No.KA.35/A.4835 was insured with respondent No.3 and another Lorry bearing registration No.KA.37/A.186 was insured with respondent No.6.

¶33

Both the drivers had valid driving licence.

¶34

Appellant No.1 is the mother and appellant No.2 is the brother of the deceased. They have claimed that, they were depending on the earnings of the deceased. It is alleged that the deceased was earning about Rs.7,500/- per month. However, no proof of income has been produced before the Tribunal.

¶35

The deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident i.e., in the year 2013. The notional income has to be taken at Rs.7,000/-. The Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month and has applied the multiplier at “14” and accordingly awarded an

¶36

: 5 :

¶37

amount of Rs.5,46,000/towards the loss of

¶38

dependency. Further the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- on conventional heads and thereby has awarded total compensation of Rs.5,76,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶39

Aggrieved by the same, the appellantsclaimants herein have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

¶40

The accident happened in the year 2013 and the deceased was aged 20 years. The notional income in the year 2013 was Rs.7,000/- and the appropriate multiplier for given age of the deceased would be “18” instead of “14” which was adopted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal erred in taking the multiplier at “14” and the notional income at Rs.5,000/-. Further the compensation under the conventional heads should be at Rs.70,000/- as

¶41

: 6 :

¶42

against Rs.30,000/-, the Tribunal erred in this regard also.

¶43

In view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5157 between National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sehti

¶44

and others, future prospects has to be added to the income of the deceased. If the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,000/- per month and as the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of his death, 40% future prospects to be added. Therefore, the income of the deceased would be Rs.9,800/- per month. Out of that, since the deceased was a bachelor 50% is deducted towards his personal expenses, the income of the deceased would be Rs.4,900/-. If it is multiplied by 12 and applicable multiplier “18”, then the total compensation towards loss of dependency

¶45

: 7 :

¶46

would be Rs.10,58,400/- (Rs.4,900 x 12 x 18 = Rs.10,58,400/-). To the said amount, an amount of Rs.70,000/is added towards other conventional heads as per the Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), totally the claimants are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.11,28,400/with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.

¶47

Hence, the appeal is allowed in part. Consequently, the judgment and award dated 16.09.2015 passed in MVC.No.829/2013 by the Tribunal is hereby modified accordingly.

¶48

It is hereby ordered that respondent Nos.3 & 6 together are liable to compensate the appellants in a total sum of Rs.11,28,400/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶49

: 8 :

¶50

Appellant No.1-claimant No.1 being the mother of the deceased is entitled to receive 90%

¶51

of the compensation and respondent No.2 being the brother of the deceased is entitled to receive 10% of the awarded amount.

¶52

Respondent Nos.3 & 6/Insurance companies are hereby held liable to pay 50% each of the compensation and they are directed to deposit the compensation with interest within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶53

Insofar as deposit and disbursement of the enhanced amount is concerned, the same shall as per the terms in the order of the Tribunal.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

EM/-

Smt.Vasuravva W/O Late Bheemappa v. Rushabendra S/O Veerabhadrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Vasuravva W/O Late Bheemappa v. Rushabendra S/O Veerabhadrappa

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

He Managing Director Vs Jagadish S/O. Siddaramayya Hiremath

Shri Ujjanagouda S/O. Veerangouda Patil Vs Karibasappa S/O. Shivappa Somanahalli

Shabnam W/O Sohrab Manocheri Vs Malikjan B Mulla

Sayeeda W/O Abdul Razak Bekanalkar Vs Sarfraz Ahamad S/O Hazisayyad

Roopa W/O Pralad Pujar Vs Kakarla Damoar Chowdary

Basavaraj S/O Basappa Hosur, Vs the State of Karnataka