Partly allowed

Smt. Annapurna W/O Kallappa Madar v. Sri. Mahesh S/O Anil Naik

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2020MFA/103047/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two appeals filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation for motor accident deaths. Relying on National Insurance Co Ltd v. Pranay Sethi, the Court modified the Tribunal's award by recalculating income with future prospects and adjusting deductions, ordering the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed in part; common judgment and award modified to enhance compensation to Rs. 24,89,200/- and Rs. 12,94,720/- respectively; interests awarded; enhanced amount to be deposited by insurer.

Smt. Annapurna W/O Kallappa Madar Vs Sri. Mahesh S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN

¶7

M.F.A.NO.103046/2018 (MV) C/W M.F.A.NO.103047/2018 (MV)

¶8

IN M.F.A.NO.103046/2018 (MV)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT.KAVITA

¶11

W/O CHANNAPPA ULLAGADDI,

¶12

AGE : 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O UGNIKERI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶13

KUMARI YASHODHA

¶14

D/O CHANNAPPA ULLAGADDI,

¶15

AGE : 14 YEARS OCC: STUDENT, R/O UGNIKERI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶16

KUMARI VIJAYALAXMI D/O CHANNAPPA ULLAGADDI, AGE : 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O UGNIKERI,

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶19

KUMARI SAVITRI D/O CHANNAPPA ULLAGADDI, AGE : 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O UGNIKERI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶20

KUMAR SHIVANAND S/O CHANNAPPA ULLAGADDI, AGE : 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O UGNIKERI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶21

SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 TO 5 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER I.E., APPELLANT NO.1.

¶22

BASAVANNEPPA S/O SHIVAPPA ULLAGADDI, AGE : 72 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O UGNIKERI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶23

SMT.NEELAVVA W/O BASAVANNEPPA ULLAGADDI, AGE : 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O UGNIKERI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶24

... APPELLANTS

¶25

(BY SRI B.S.SANGATI, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

SRI MAHESH S/O ANIL NAIK, AGE : 57 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TRUCK, BEARING REG.NO.GA-10/T0281,

¶28

: 3 :

¶29

R/O NO.1075/A, GOVINDAL PAINGIN, CANACONA, SOUTH GAO-403702.

¶30

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, IFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE, COMPANY LTD., 1^ST FLOOR, DAMADOAR COMPLEX, NEAR NTTF, RAMANAGAR, DHARWAD-580001

¶31

... RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI RAVINDRA R.MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R.2) (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶33

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC IN KALAGHATAGI IN M.V.C.NO.607/2016 FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION

¶34

IN M.F.A.NO.103047/2018 (MV)

¶35

BETWEEN :

¶36

SMT.ANNAPURNA

¶37

W/O KALLAPPA MADAR,

¶38

AGE : 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O UGIKERI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶39

KUMARI FAKKIRAMMA D/O KALLAPPA MADAR, AGE : 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O UGIKERI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶40

SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E., APPELLANT NO.1.

… APPELLANTS

: 4 :

AND :

SRI MAHESH S/O ANIL NAIK,

¶45

` AGE : 57 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TRUCK, BEARING REG.NO.GA.10/T 0281, R/O H.NO.1075/A, GOVINDAL PAINGIN, CANACONA, SOUTH GOA-403702.

¶46

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER IFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE, COMPANY LTD., 1^ST FLOOR, DAMADOAR COMPLEX, NEAR NTTF, RAMANAGAR, DHARWAD-580001

¶47

... RESPONDENTS

¶48

(BY SRI RAVINDRA R.MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R.2) (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶49

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC KALAGHATAGI IN M.V.C.NO.608/2016 FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶50

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A. THIS DAY, B.A.PATIL, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

Though these two appeals have been

¶53

listed for hearing on interlocutory application, with the consent of learned counsel appearing

¶54

: 5 :

¶55

for the parties, the same are taken up for final disposal.

¶56

preferred by the claimants in MVC.No.607/2016 and M.F.A.No.103047/2018 has been preferred

¶57

by the claimants in MVC.No.608/2016, challenging the common judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Kalaghatagi (“Tribunal” for short) in MVC.No.607/2016 C/w MVC.No.608/2016 dated 02.01.2018.

¶58

We have heard learned counsel for the claimants/appellants and learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company.

¶59

The case of the claimants/appellants

¶60

in brief is that on 10.07.2016 at about 11.30 p.m., the husband of petitioner No.1, father of

¶61

: 6 :

¶62

petitioner Nos.2 to 5 and son of petitioner Nos.6 and 7 in MVC.No.607/2016 and the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 in MVC.No.608/2016 were standing behind their vehicle bearing registration No.CG-04/GA 1073. At that time, another lorry bearing registration No.GA-10/T 0281 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, without blowing any horn and dashed against one Smt.Siddavva Hallappa Ganiger, who was about to cross the road and thereafter the said lorry came and hit the husbands of petitioner No.1 in both the cases. All the three persons died on the spot. For having lost their earning members, the claimants have filed two claim petitions separately.

¶63

: 7 :

¶64

The Tribunal after taking into

¶65

consideration the factual matrix in both the cases, awarded the compensation in a sum of Rs.15,60,000/in MVC.No.607/2016 and Rs.7,92,000 in MVC.No.608/2016. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation by filing these appeals.

¶66

The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellants are that, the deceased in MVC.No.607/2016 was the driver cum owner of the truck and he was earning Rs.15,000/per month as a driver and Rs.40,000/per month out of transport business. The Tribunal without taking into consideration the said aspect has awarded the compensation on various heads which is on the

¶67

: 8 :

¶68

lower side. It is further submitted that in both the cases, the income which has been taken is on the lower side. The year of accident and the wages prescribed are taken into consideration; the compensation awarded is on the lower side. It is further submitted that the future prospects of the deceased has not taken into consideration. The Tribunal ought to have awarded the future prospects. On all these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeals by enhancing the compensation.

¶69

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company, vehemently argued and submitted that, the claimants have not produced any relevant documents to substantiate their case to show that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/and Rs.40,000/- per month even that he was not an

¶70

: 9 :

¶71

income tax assessee. If really he was having good income, definitely he could have produced income tax return. It is his further submission that the Tribunal after taking in to consideration all the material facts has rightly awarded the compensation. Therefore there are no grounds to enhance the compensation. On all these grounds he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶72

We have carefully and cautiously gone through the judgment and awarded of the Tribunal and perused the appeal memo including the Tribunal records.

¶73

It is not in dispute that, the Truck bearing registration No.KA.10/T 0281 was

¶74

insured with the respondent-insurer and as on the date of the accident the insurance policy was valid and the driver of the said truck was

¶75

: 10 :

¶76

holding a valid and effective driving licence. The only point which has been raised before this Court is, with reference to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶77

As could be seen from the judgment of the Tribunal, the petitioners have claimed that, the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/per month as a driver of a lorry and further earning an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month out of the transport business. They have also produced certified copy of the RC Book to show that the deceased was the owner of the lorry bearing registration No.CG-04/GA 1073 and they have also produced transportation bills.

¶78

By taking in to consideration the said aspect, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month in MVC.No.607/2016. As there were

¶79

: 11 :

¶80

seven dependents, after deducting 1/5^th from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and after applying the multiplier of “15” has awarded an amount of Rs.14,40,000/- towards loss of dependency and an amount of Rs.40,000/for loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, in all an amount of Rs.15,60,000/has been awarded as compensation. Though the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is justifiable, but on plain reading of the judgment of the Tribunal, the income taken appears to be on the lower side. The claimants have produced the records to show that the deceased was owner of the lorry and he was also doing the transport

¶81

: 12 :

¶82

business and transportation bills have also been produced.

¶83

The Tribunal has not added the future

¶84

prospects, 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 and others . If the income of the deceased it is taken as Rs.12,000/- per month and as the deceased was aged about 39 years at the time of his death, future prospects of 40% has to be added. Therefore, the income of the deceased would be Rs.16,800/- per month. Out of that, 1/5^th is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the income of the deceased would be Rs.13,440/-. If it is multiplied by 12 and applicable multiplier “15” then the total compensation towards loss of

¶85

: 13 :

¶86

dependency would be Rs.24,19,200/-

¶87

(Rs.13,440 x 12 x 15 = Rs.24,19,200/-).

¶88

Though the Tribunal has awarded compensation on various heads, but in view of the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi’s stated supra the total compensation which the claimants are entitled to is Rs.70,000/-. In all the claimants are entitle to total compensation of Rs.24,89,200/-. Since, already, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,60,000/- after deducting the same the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.9,29,200/-

¶89

with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶90

Insofar as the claimants in MFA.No.103047/2018 is concerned, the

¶91

deceased was working as cleaner in the same lorry and it is contended that, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal after

¶92

: 14 :

¶93

taking into consideration, the income at the rate of Rs.6,000/after deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and after applying the multiplier of “14” has awarded the compensation of Rs.6,72,000/towards loss of dependency and Rs.40,000/towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards transportation charges and funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection in all an amount of Rs.7,92,000/- has been awarded.

¶94

But the income of the deceased taken

¶95

by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side. Admittedly, accident has taken place on 10.07.2016. During the year 2016, the income which is normally taken at Rs.8,750/- and after adding 25% towards future prospects as per

¶96

: 15 :

¶97

Pranay Sethi’s case as the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of his death, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.10,937.50/which is rounded of to Rs.10,937/-. After deducting 1/3^rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.7,292/which is rounded off to Rs.7,290/-. If it is multiplied by 12 and applicable multiplier “14”, then the total compensation towards loss of dependency would be Rs.12,24,720/- (Rs.7,291 x 12 x 14 = Rs.12,24,720/-). To the said amount, an amount of Rs.70,000/- is added towards other conventional heads as per the Pranay Sethi’s case, totally the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.12,94,720/-. Since, already the Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of

¶98

: 16 :

¶99

Rs.7,92,000/-, after deducting the same, the claimants are entitled to enhanced

¶100

compensation of Rs.5,02,720/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶101

In the light of above discussion held

¶102

by us, both the appeals are allowed in part. The common judgment and award passed in MVC.No.607/2016 and MVC.No.608/2016

¶103

passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified as stated above.

¶104

The respondent/insurance company is

¶105

directed to deposit the enhanced amount with up to date interest within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

¶106

: 17 :

¶107

Insofar as apportionment, deposit

¶108

and disbursement of the enhanced amount is concerned, as per the order of the Tribunal.

¶109

In view of the disposal of the

¶110

appeals, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration, accordingly the same is disposed off.

¶111

Sd/JUDGE

¶112

Sd/JUDGE

¶113

EM/-

Smt. Annapurna W/O Kallappa Madar v. Sri. Mahesh S/O Anil Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Annapurna W/O Kallappa Madar v. Sri. Mahesh S/O Anil Naik

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

Ramanna Timmanna Gudasalmani Vs Govindaraddi S/O. Bhimaraddi Shrihari

Smt. Kavita W/O Channappa Ullagaddi Vs Sri. Mahesh S/O Anil Naik

Kariyappa Bhimappa Menasindi Vs Manjunath Kariyappa Mensaindi