Partly allowed

Legal Manager v. Leela.K @ Leelamma

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2020MFA/9554/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a compromise order, joined two first appeals regarding accident compensation, and enhanced the awarded amount by applying Supreme Court guidelines on notional income and future prospects deductions.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation from Rs.10,22,800/- to Rs.10,49,944/- payable with interest by the insurer; insurer directed to deposit amount.

Legal Manager Vs Leela.K @ Leelamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9554 OF 2013 (MV-D)

¶7

C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10299 OF 2013 (MV-D)

¶9

IN MFA NO.9554/2013:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

LEGAL MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., #89, II FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX, 2^ND FLOOR, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560068

¶12

... APPELLANT

¶13

[BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC)]

¶14

AND:

¶15

LEELA .K @ LEELAMMA, W/O LATE KUMAR,

¶16

NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶17

UDAY KUMAR @ UDAY S/O LATE KUMAR,

¶18

NOW AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

¶19

ARUN KUMAR @ ARUNA S/O LATE KUMAR,

¶20

NOW AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,

¶21

¶22

A LL ARE R/AT NO.9/1, 8^TH CROSS, C BLOCK, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-560023.

¶23

(REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER LEELA K @ LEELAMMA - RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶24

PUTTARAJU.M S/O MUNITHIMMAIAH, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT NO.4, PURADA PALYA, DODDAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE-SOUTH, BANGALORE-560030.

¶25

… RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. D.S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 3;

¶27

NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.4 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:21.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7246/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,22,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.

¶29

¶30

IN MFA NO.10299/2013:

¶31

BETWEEN

¶32

LEELA .K @ LEELAMMA W/O LATE KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶33

UDAY KUMAR @ UDAYA S/O LATE KUMAR AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

¶34

ARUN KUMAR @ ARUNA S/O LATE KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS

¶35

APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER - APPELLANT NO.1 LEELA K.

¶36

ALL ARE R/AT NO.9/1,^TH CROSS, C BLOCK,

¶37

MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-560023. …APPELLANTS

¶38

(BY SRI D.S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶39

AND

¶40

PUTTARAJU S/O MUNI THIMMAIAH, R/A NO.4, PURADAPALYA, DODDAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, TAVARAKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE-562130.

¶41

¶42

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.89, 2^ND FLOOR, S.V.R. COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA, BANGALORE-560068. …RESPONDENTS

¶43

[BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 (THROUGH VC);

¶44

NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 09.01.2015]

¶45

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC No.7246/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XIX ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶46

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

J U D G M E N T

¶48

Though these appeals are posted for admission, with

¶49

the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up for final disposal.

¶50

¶51

M.F.A. No.9554/2013 is filed by the insurer challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in MVC No.7246/2012 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) while M.F.A. No.10299/2013 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶52

For the sake of convenience, appellants in MFA No.10299/2013, who are respondent Nos.1 to 3 in MFA. No.9554/2013, will henceforth be referred to as ‘claimants’. The appellant in MFA No.9554/2013, who is legal manager of respondent No.2 – Insurance Company in MFA No.10299/2013, will henceforth be referred to as the ‘insurer’ of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 in MFA No.10299/2013, who is respondent No.4 in MFA No.9554/2013 will henceforth be referred to as the ‘owner’ of the offending vehicle.

¶53

¶54

The claim petition discloses that on 23.10.2012

¶55

at about 9 p.m., a person named Kumar was walking on Bangalore - Magadi main road in front of Amma hospital, Tavarekere, Ramanagaram District. At that time, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02-HL-5942 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed against the deceased. The deceased died at the spot due to the injuries sustained. The claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased and they contended that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month and due to his untimely death, the claimants were deprived of the emotional and financial support that the deceased was providing. Therefore, they filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶56

¶57

The claim petition was resisted by the owner, who denied the manner of the occurrence of the accident as described by the claimants. He contended that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the deceased who came over to the center of the road without observing the moving traffic. However, he contended that the offending vehicle was covered by a policy of insurance issued by the insurer.

¶58

The insurer admitted that it had insured the offending vehicle, but contended that the owner had not complied with the requirements of Sections 134(C) and 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It, however, contended that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the deceased himself. Alternatively, it contended that the rider of the offending vehicle did not carry an effective licence at the time of the accident.

¶59

Claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and a

¶60

witness as PW.2, who deposed that the deceased was working as a milkman and that he was paying Rs.300/- per

¶61

¶62

day to the deceased and they marked Exs.P1 to P12 while the insurer and the owner did not lead evidence and did not mark any document.

¶63

The Tribunal held on the basis of Exs.P1 to P8

¶64

that the rider of the offending vehicle was negligent and was responsible for the accident. In so far as the claim for compensation is concerned, the Tribunal held that the claimants had not placed on record any material proof to establish that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. The salary certificate at Ex.P12 which was allegedly issued by PW.2 indicated that he was paying a sum of Rs.300/- per day to the deceased but was not believed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noticed that the amount of Rs.300/- and total amount of Rs.9,000/- in the salary certificate were overwritten and thus, felt it appropriate to consider the income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.200/- per day and a sum of Rs.6000/- per month . The Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 44 years and has taken 30% of the income of the deceased as loss of future prospects and arrived at income

¶65

¶66

of the deceased at Rs.7,800/- per month and deducted 1/4^th of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased and awarded the following compensation:

¶67

Sl. No.	Heads under which compensation is awarded	Amount (in Rupees)
1.	Loss of dependency (1/4^thof Rs.7,800/- is Rs.5,850/- Rs.5,850/- x 12 x 14)	Rs.9,82,800/-
2.	Loss of expectation of life	Rs.10,000/-
3.	Towards funeral and transportation of dead body	Rs.10,000/-
4.	Towards loss of love and affection	Rs.10,000/-
5.	Towards loss of consortium	Rs.10,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs.10,22,800/-

¶68

The Tribunal awarded the aforesaid

¶69

compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment.

¶70

Challenging the aforesaid Judgment and

¶71

Award, the claimants and insurer have preferred MFA No.10299/2013 and MFA No.9554/2013 respectively.

¶72

¶73

The learned counsel for the insurer contended that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation towards 30% loss of future prospects to claimants in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, which mandates that in respect of persons who do not have proof of income and aged more than 40 years, they are entitled to loss of future prospects at 25% of the actual income. He also contended that since the dependants of the deceased were three in number, following the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3^rd of the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses instead of 1/4^th .

¶74

Per contra, learned counsel for claimants contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered a sum of Rs.7,000/- as the notional monthly income of the deceased as has been done by this Court in cases referred to Lok Adalat for settlement.

¶75

¶76

It is not in dispute that this Court has been

¶77

considering notional monthly income of Rs.7,000/- in respect of victims – injured or those who died in road traffic accidents in the year 2012. Thus, in order to maintain uniformity, it is appropriate that the notional income of the deceased is considered at a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month and as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the insurer, the claimants are entitled to loss of future prospects at 25% and not 30% as declared by the Tribunal.

¶78

Likewise, the Tribunal ought to have deducted personal expenses of the deceased at 1/3^rd instead of 1/4^th . If the notional income of the deceased is taken at Rs.7,000/- per month and loss of future prospects at 25%, then the compensation payable to the claimants deserves to be re-determined as follows:

¶79

¶80

Sl. No.	Heads under which compensation is awarded	Amount (in Rupees)
1	Loss of dependency along with loss of future prospects at 25% (Rs.7000/- + Rs.1750/- =Rs.8750/- (Rs.8750 - Rs.2917/- = Rs.5833/-) (Rs.5833/- x 12 x 14)	9,79,944/-
2	Loss of consortium to claimant No.1	25,000/-
3	Loss of parental consortium at Rs.10,000/- each to claimant Nos.2 and 3	20,000/-
4	Loss of estate	20,000/-
5	Funeral and other obsequies	5,000/-
	TOTAL	10,49,944/-

¶81

In view of the above, M.F.A. No.10299/2013 filed by claimants is allowed in part and M.F.A. No.9554/2013 filed by the insurer is dismissed. The impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.10,22,800/ to Rs.10,49,944/-, which is payable by the insurer to the claimants along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶82

¶83

The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest as stated above within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶84

The amount in deposit is directed to be

¶85

transmitted to the Tribunal for necessary orders.

¶86

Sd/JUDGE

¶87

sma

Legal Manager v. Leela.K @ Leelamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Legal Manager v. Leela.K @ Leelamma

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

Smt. Laxmamma Vs the Manager

Sri Gangi Reddy Vs P Sreenivasulu Reddy

Praxair India Private Limited Vs Inox Air Products Private Limited

The Branch Manager Vs Ningamma

D Madhavamurthy S/O Late v G Doraiswamy Vs R Govindaswamy Since Dead by His Lrs

Hanumantha Naika Vs Sri Pattabi Ramegowda H a