Partly allowed

Sri. K C Preetham v. Sri. P Nageshwara Rao

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2021MFA/1493/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bench enhanced compensation from Rs.31,33,208 to Rs.46,95,810 for appellants affected by a road traffic accident wherein the father of the two minors deceased. The court calculated loss of dependency, consortium, and funeral expenses applying Supreme Court precedents on future prospects and multipliers.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.46,95,810; liability and apportionment remain intact; insurance company to deposit within 90 days.

Sri. K C Preetham Vs Sri. P Nageshwara Rao — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1493 OF 2016 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

Sri.K.C.Preetham S/o late T S Chandrashekar Aged about 23 years

¶10

K. C. Sampreetha D/o late T S Chandrashekar Aged about 17 years

¶11

Smt. Sarojamma W/o late T C Subbarayappa Aged about 65 years

¶12

Since Appellant No.2 is minor Being represented by her Grand mother Smt. Sarojamma As Guardian-cum-near friend.

¶13

All are R/at Pushpa Nilaya Near Bangarpet Circle Kolar Bangalore Road Old Factory compound Kolar-563 101.

¶14

...Appellants

¶15

¶16

(By Smt. Suguna R Reddy, Advocate)

¶17

AND

¶18

Sri. P. Nageshwara Rao S/o Chinnabbaiah Aged about 40 years R/at Prop. “Hotel Supreme Palace” No.24-28-6, Durgapuram Vijayawada-520 001. Krishna District Andhra Pradesh.

¶19

The Branch Manager Bharathi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. I Floor, Fems Icon S.No.28, Doddanekkundi K R Puram Bangalore-560 037.

¶20

….Respondents

¶21

(By Shri H N Keshava Prashanth, Advocate for R2; Vide order dated 07.06.2021 notice to R1 is dispensed with)

¶22

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 14.11.2013 passed in MVC No.8594 of 2010 on the file of the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-4, Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶23

This Miscellaneous First appeal coming on for further orders, this day, INDIRESH J., delivered the following:

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

This appeal is preferred by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 14^th November, 2013 in MVC

¶26

¶27

No.8594 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal’), seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶28

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to with their status and rank before the Tribunal.

¶29

It is the case of the claimants that on 07^th November, 2010, father of claimants 1 and 2-Chandrashekar, was driving his car bearing registration No.KA-17/M-4017 on NH-4 between Kolar-Mulabagilu and that time, bus bearing registration No.AP16/BA-3399 dashed against the car and as the result of the said accident, father of the claimants 1 and 2 died. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was working as clerk-cumcashier and earning Rs.29,707/- per month and due to the untimely death of Chandrashekar, the claimants suffered monetarily and mentally and hence have filed MVC No.8594 of 2010 on the file of the Tribunal, seeking compensation.

¶30

¶31

On service of notice, respondent No.1 unrepresented and placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings on record, formulated issues for its consideration. Claimant No.1 was examined as PW1 and examined another witness as PW2 and produced 17 documents and same were marked as Exhibits P1 to P17. No evidence on the part of the respondent. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and award dated 14^th November, 2013, allowed the claim petition in part and held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.31,33,208/- with interest the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claimants are before this court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶32

We have heard Smt. Suguna R. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri H.N. Keshava Prashanth,

¶33

¶34

learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance

¶35

Company.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lesser side, which requires to be considered on reappreciation of Exhibit P17.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company argued that the award made by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶38

We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. It is not in dispute that the father of claimants 1 and 2- Chandrashekar, died in a road traffic accident on 07^th November, 2010. As per records, deceased was working as Clerk-cumCashier in Pragati Grameena Bank and drawing a gross salary of Rs.29,707.80 per month. The claimants have examined the Officer of the Grameena Bank to substantiate the employment of the deceased. Exhibit P17 is the pay-slip of the deceased for the

¶39

¶40

month of October, 2010. The annual gross salary of the deceased, after deducting Income-tax and Professional Tax, would be Rs.4,29,125/-. The deceased was aged about 45 years as on the date of accident and has left behind four dependents. In terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, 30% is to be added towards future prospects. In terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the appropriate multiplier would be 14 and deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased would be one-fourth. Hence, loss of dependency would be Rs.45,05,810/- (Rs.4,29,125/- x 14 x ¾). There are four dependents. Therefore, claimants are entitled for Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 4) towards loss of consortium. Claimants are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and for funeral expenses. In the result, claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.46,95,810/- as against

¶41

¶42

Rs.31,33,208/- awarded by the Tribunal. In the result, we pass the following:

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

i) Appeal is allowed in part;

¶45

ii) Total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.46,95,810/(Rupees forty six lakh ninety five thousand eight hundred ten only) against Rs.31,33,208/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation, subject to clause (iii);

¶46

iii) The claimants shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period of 720 days caused in filing the appeal the appeal before this Court in terms of the order of this court dated 05^th July, 2021;

¶47

iv) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement, remains intact;

¶48

v) 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;

¶49

¶50