Allowed

Sri Thakur Prasad v. Suresh D S

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2021MFA/1718/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident compensation appeal, the High Court of Karnataka enhanced the compensation awarded to legal representatives of a deceased pedestrian by applying Supreme Court guidelines for income assessment, dependency loss, and future prospects, granting a total of Rs. 10,69,428/-.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 10,69,428/- with interest at 6% from the date of filing of the petition.

Sri Thakur Prasad Vs Suresh D S — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

M.F.A. NO.1718 OF 2020 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI THAKUR PRASAD S/O MUNNILAL PRASAD AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶11

AMITH KUMAR S/O THAKUR PRASAD AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶12

ABHAY KUMAR S/O THAKUR PRASAD AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶13

NEHA KUMARI D/O THAKUR PRASAD AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT FATEHPUR SIWAN BYPASS ROAD, SIWAN BIHAR-841 226.

¶15

...APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI GURUDEV PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

AND:

¶19

SURESH D S

¶20

S/O SIDDEGOWDA R/AT NO.84, AMARANARAYANA BUILDING VITTASANDRA, BEGUR HOBLI NEAR KAVERAMMA TEMPLE BENGALURU DISTRICT.

¶21

MR. THIMMAREDDY NO.1, B.T.R. GARDEN KUDLU VILLAGE, MADIWALA POST BENGALURU-560 068.

¶22

TATA AIG GIC LTD

¶23

BY ITS MANAGER NO.69, J.P. AND DEVI JAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE III FLOOR, MILLERS ROAD BANGALORE-560 052.

¶24

...RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; NOTICE TO R-1 AND R-2 ARE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 01.04.2021)

¶26

¶27

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.5136/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, M.A.C.T., MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH-21), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶28

¶29

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, against the judgment dated 03.10.2019 in MVC.5136/2018 passed by the XVII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (SCCH-21) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).

¶32

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 16.08.2017, when Indu Devi was walking on the Mayura E-city Apartment passage, Doddathoguru, Bengaluru, at that time, a Tata 709 vehicle driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Indu Devi. As a result of the same, she sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Sparsh hospital, in spite of the treatment, she succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.

¶33

¶34

The claimants thereupon filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 56 years at the time of accident and was doing knitting, sewing, embroidery, and tailoring work and was earning a sum of Rs.10,00,000/per annum. It was further pleaded that the accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tata vehicle by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/- along with interest.

¶35

The respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed written statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It is denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. The averments made in the petition were denied. The respondent No.3-Insurance company contended that the petition is not maintainable as there is no charge under section 279 of IPC against the driver of the Tata vehicle. It was further denied the alleged negligence of the driver of the Tata vehicle. It was further pleaded that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding

¶36

¶37

valid driving license to drive the said vehicle as on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive.

¶38

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined himself as PW1, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. The respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor produced any documentary evidence.

¶39

The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tata vehicle by its driver. It was further held that as a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,33,192/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶40

¶41

Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that

¶42

the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month instead of Rs.11,000/- per month. He further submitted that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is on the lower side and the same requires to be enhanced.

¶43

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the claimants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation. He further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶44

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶45

Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that deceased at the time of accident was

¶46

¶47

aged about 56 years and was doing tailoring work etc. The accident is of the year 2017. Therefore, if notional income of the deceased is assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, notional income comes to Rs.11,000/- per month.

¶48

In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’

¶49

AIR 2017 SC 5157 , 10% of the amount has to be added on account of future prospects. Therefore the income of the deceased comes to RS.12,100/- per month. The Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., -VSBIRENDER AND OTHERS reported in ACJ 2020 759 has held that legal representatives have right to apply for compensation and it would be bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. In view of the decision of the Apex Court, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased should be deducted towards

¶50

¶51

personal expenses since there are four dependants who are the husband, sons and daughters of the deceased and was also dependant on the income of the deceased. By assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- p.m, applying multiplier of 9, deducting 1/3rd of the assessed income towards personal expenses and adding 10% of the assessed income of the deceased towards future prospects the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,71,236/-/(11,000 + 10% = 1,100 = 12,100 x 1/3 = 8,067 x 12 x 9 ) under the head loss of dependency.

¶52

In view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM

¶53

& ORS.’ (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in ‘UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.’ IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 DECIDED ON

¶54

30.06.2020 each of the claimant’s are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.1,60,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to

¶55

¶56

Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶57

The compensation amount of Rs.8,192/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is maintained.

¶58

Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,69,428/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs.4,36,236/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount of compensation. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶59

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sri Thakur Prasad v. Suresh D S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Thakur Prasad v. Suresh D S

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

Pr. Commissioner of Vs M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex

Smt Shakuntala Vs C Nagesh

Union of India Vs Mr. Prahlad Jangannavar

Maliningaiah Vs Sri Venkatesh

Gmr Infrastructure Limited Vs the Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax

Sri Javaregowda Vs the Divisional Controller