Partly allowed

Shri.Maruti S/O. Yamanappa Artagalla @ Attagall v. He Divisional Controller Nwkrtc

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2020MFA/100609/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Civil Judge enhanced the compensation awarded to dependants of a deceased in a road accident case from Rs. 7.30 lakhs to Rs. 15.53 lakhs. The court applied future prospects adjustments and recalculated the loss of dependency based on the deceased's notional income and age before granting the appeal in part.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation to Rs. 15.53 lakhs; interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

Shri.Maruti S/O. Yamanappa Artagalla @ Attagall Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶8

M.F.A. NO.100609/2019 (MV)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

SHRI.MARUTI S/O. YAMANAPPA ARTAGALLA @ ATTAGALL, AGE:52 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE, R/O. SULLIKERI, TQ:RAMDURG, DIST:BELAGAVI-591123.

¶11

SMT UDDAVVA W/O. MARUTI ARTAGALLA @ ATTAGALL AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SULLIKERI, TQ:RAMDURG, DIST:BELAGAVI-591123.

¶12

KUMARI YALLAVVA D/O. MARUTI ARTAGALLA @ ATTAGALL AGE:17 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT, R/O. SULLIKERI, TQ:RAMDURG, DIST:BELAGAVI-591123.

¶13

KUMARI PREMA D/O. MARUTI ARTAGALLA @ ATTAGALL AGE:14 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT, R/O. SULLIKERI, TQ:RAMDURG, DIST:BELAGAVI-591123.

¶14

¶15

KUMAR YAMANAPPA S/O. MARUTI ARTAGALLA @ ATTAGALL AGE:13 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT, R/O. SULLIKERI, TQ:RAMDURG, DIST:BELAGAVI-591123.

¶16

...APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADV.)

¶18

AND

¶19

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NWKRTC BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI.I.C.PATIL, ADV.)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.33/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT-II, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellants-claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.09.2017, passed in M.V.C. No.33/2017 on the file of the I Additional District Judge and MACT II, Belagavi (for short “the Tribunal”), seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶27

For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶28

Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that on 11.05.2016, the deceased Rajappa S/o. Maruti Artaggala @ Attagall was travelling in a tractor bearing No.KA-24/T-4036 and trailer bearing No.MEZ-8383 from Khanapet towards Sullikeri. When he reached

¶30

¶31

within the limits of Khanapet Village of Ramadurg Taluk, a bus bearing No.KA-42/F-1274 belonging to the respondent – Corporation being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the trailer and the deceased sustained grievous injuries due to the impact and succumbed to the injuries at the spot.

¶32

The deceased at the time of the accident was aged about 19 years and was doing agricultural work. Aggrieved by the said accident, the petitioners who are the parents and siblings of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act in M.V.C. No.33/2017.

¶33

On service of notice, the respondent Corporation appeared and filed its objections. It denied the liability.

¶34

Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. The petitioner No.1 examined himself and another person as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked 21 documents. The

¶35

¶36

respondent examined one witness and marked 5 documents.

¶37

The Tribunal based on the evidence recorded has awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till payment of entire amount.

¶38

Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal on the ground that sufficient compensation is not awarded, the petitioners therein have preferred this appeal.

¶39

There is no dispute as to the nature and the manner of accident. This appeal is limited to the quantum that is awarded.

¶40

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶41

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation. Perused the papers.

¶43

Admittedly, the accident took place in the year 2016. The deceased was aged 19 years. The notional income fixed by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority in the year 2016 is Rs.8,750/-, whereas, it is seen that the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- and the multiplier is taken at 14. Taking into consideration the notional income at Rs.8,750/- and as the age of the deceased being 19, the appropriate multiplier ought to have been 18. The deceased being bachelor, 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. However, it is noticed that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects and that needs to be added to the income of the deceased as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . Considering the age of

¶44

¶45

the deceased being 19 at the time of the accident, 40% future prospects needs to be added. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is calculated as follows:

¶46

(Rs.8,750 X 12 – 50% X 18 + 40% = Rs.13,23,000/- )

¶47

There being five dependants, towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection, a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram and Others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782. In addition, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thereby the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.15,53,000/- .

¶48

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,30,000/which has already been satisfied.

¶49

Thus, the appellants are entitled to an enhanced amount of Rs.8,23,000/-. The same shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition

¶50

¶51

till realization. However, interest from the date of award till today is denied, as there is inordinate delay in preferring the appeal.

¶52

The order of apportionment and deposit ordered by the Tribunal shall hold good for the compensation enhanced in this appeal.

¶53

The respondent No.2 Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶54

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶55

Registry to draw up the decree accordingly.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Rsh

Shri.Maruti S/O. Yamanappa Artagalla @ Attagall v. He Divisional Controller Nwkrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Maruti S/O. Yamanappa Artagalla @ Attagall v. He Divisional Controller Nwkrtc

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

R.R. Hemantanavar Vs the Land Acquisition Officer

Tofel Khan Vs S. Noorullah S/O Mahaboob Sab

Laxman S/O Yallappa Sunkad Vs the State of Karnataka

Devaraddi Vs the Divisional Manager

The Divisional Manager Vs Devaraddi

Chandrakant S/O Tammanna Majagi Vs Karnataka State Bar Council