Partly allowed

Sri Gundappa v. Sri S Sivabalan

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2020MFA/9723/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly, enhancing the motor accident compensation awarded to the claimants. The Court reassessed the deceased husband's income and consequential losses, increasing the total compensation from Rs. 9,37,200/- to Rs. 15,46,400/-.

What did the court decide?

The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced from Rs. 9,37,200/- to Rs. 15,46,400/- with interest at 6% p.a.

Sri Gundappa Vs Sri S Sivabalan — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

M.F.A.No.9723/2018 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI.GUNDAPPA S/O LATE MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶10

SMT.RATHNAMMA

¶11

W/O GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶12

BOTH ARE R/AT M.GOPAHALLI VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 562109. ...APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI.RAJU.S., ADV.)

¶14

AND :

¶15

SRI.S.SIVABALAN

¶16

S/O SELVARAJU No.2/97, K.S.PETTAI AMARAKUNTHAI, OMALUR TALUK

¶17

SALEM DISTRICT

¶18

TAMIL NADU-636001.

¶19

THE UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 1^ST FLOOR, R.V.R. COMPLEX

¶20

OPP. LIC OFFICE, BEHIND KSRTC BUS STAND

¶21

- 2 -

¶22

IJOOR, RAMANAGARA-562159 REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.L.SREEKANTA RAO, ADV. FOR R-2; V/O. DATED 24.11.2020, NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶24

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.05.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.232/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

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

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.03.2018 passed in MVC No.232/2016 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Additional Senior Civil Judge at Ramanagara ['Tribunal’ for short].

¶28

The claimants being the parents of the deceased Abhishek.G instituted petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ['Act' for short] claiming compensation for the death of the said Abhishek.G in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 07.06.2016.

¶29

- 3 -

¶30

It was averred in the claim petition that on 07.06.2016 at about 2.00 p.m., when Abhishek.G was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42-E6559, the speeding lorry bearing registration No.TN-28Y-4282 [offending vehicle] driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner has dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased near Bannikuppe Cross, in front of Anthom Factory. Owing to which, Abhishek.G fell down from the motorcycle and the wheel of the lorry ran over the head of the Abhishek.G and he died at the spot.

¶31

It was contended that the deceased was

¶32

engaged in dairy farming and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. Due to the untimely death of their son, the claimants are unable to maintain themselves. According, they sought for compensation.

¶33

On issuance of summons by the Tribunal,

¶34

the owner as well as insurer of offending vehicle appeared and contested the claim. The owner of the

¶35

¶36

offending vehicle denying the allegations of negligence on the part of the driver of the said vehicle submitted that the driver had driving licence and the vehicle was insured with the insurer – respondent No.2 and the policy was in force on the date of the accident. The claimants have colluded with the police and got registered the case against the driver of the offending vehicle in order to enrich themselves.

¶37

The insurer has filed written statement denying the petition averments. However, admitted the issuance of policy and its coverage on the date of the accident, subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶38

On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed by the Tribunal and answered, partly allowing

¶39

- 5 -

¶40

the claim petition awarding total compensation of Rs.9,37,200/- with interest at 7% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶41

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the income determined by the Tribunal to reckon the loss of dependency is not proportionate to the income earned by the deceased duly established by the claimants supported by the material evidence. It was argued that the future prospects awarded at 40% of the income determined at Rs.6,000/- is inappropriate.

¶43

Learned counsel for the insurer supporting the impugned judgment and award submitted that the Tribunal having analyzed the material evidence on

¶44

¶45

record has rightly awarded just compensation which do not calls for any interference by this Court.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is evident that the accident in question occurred on 07.06.2016. Though the claimants contended that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m., from the dairy farming the same is not substantiated by concrete evidence.

¶47

In the absence of material evidence, we deem it appropriate to refer to the chart of the Legal Services Authority to determine the income of the deceased which would be Rs.9,500/- adding 40% towards future prospects of Rs.3,800/-, the total income would be Rs.13,300/-. Applying the multiplier of 18, deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs.14,36,400/- [13,300 x 12 x 18 x 1/2].

¶48

¶49

In terms of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex

¶50

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others ((2017)16 SCC 680) and New India Assurance Company Limited V/s. Somwati and Others [Civil Appeal No.3093 of 2020 and Connected matters, D.D. on September 7, 2020], the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,10,000/under the conventional heads viz., Rs.80,000/- towards loss of filial consortium (Rs.40,000/- to each parent); Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate.

¶51

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed

¶52

as under:

¶53

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount [in Rs.]
1.	Loss ofdependency	14,36,400/-
2.	Loss of Filial Consortium (Rs.40,000/- to each parent)	80,000/-
3.	Loss of Estate	15,000/-
4.	Funeralexpenses	15,000/-
	Total	15,46,400/-

¶54

¶55

Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.15,46,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶56

Hence, the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i] The appeal is allowed in part.

¶59

ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.15,46,400/- as against Rs.9,37,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶60

iii] The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact.

¶61

¶62

iv] The insurance company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶63

v] The modified compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

¶64

vi] Draw modified award accordingly.

¶65

vii] The Registry shall transfer the original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

NC.

Sri Gundappa v. Sri S Sivabalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gundappa v. Sri S Sivabalan

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

C M Vinutha Vs Sri Shivakumara Swamy

Sri.Rama Devadiga Vs Sri.Sharavana Kumar

Sr Manager-Claims Vs Nagaraju T R

Yashodamma Vs the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

The Claim Manager Vs Yashodamma

Smt N Lalitha Vs Sri Nagaraju