Partly allowed

Smt Lalithamma v. M D Revanna

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2021MFA/2105/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal arose from a motor vehicle accident resulting in death. While the Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.6,44,500, this Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.15,13,000 by assessing a higher notional monthly income of Rs.7,000 and applying statutory guidelines for loss of dependency and consortium.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award of the Tribunal were modified; compensation enhanced from Rs.6,44,500 to Rs.15,13,000.

Smt Lalithamma Vs M D Revanna — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2105 OF 2014 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT LALITHAMMA W/O LATE H NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶10

GANESH S/O LATE H NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

¶11

RANJEETH D/O LATE H NAGARA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶12

SMT. SHARADHAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶13

ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/A 5^TH CROSS 3^RD MAIN, VIDYANAGARA SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 201

¶14

… APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SMT/MISS PAVITHRA M., ADV.,)

¶16

AND:

¶17

M D REVANNA S/O DODDA SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O MUDENAHALLI VILLAGE YADHAPURA POST

¶18

¶19

ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 576 212

¶20

DEVEGOWDA S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/O VENKATESHWARA TRANSPORT COMPANY VENKATESHWARA NILAYA M G ROAD, HASSAN HASSAN DISTRICT - 576 212

¶21

THE BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VINAYAKA COMPLEX 1^ST CROSS, GADEN AREA SHIMOGA SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 201

¶22

… RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. K.N. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1-SERVED)

¶24

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.910/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, SHIMOGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Smt/Miss Pavithra M., learned counsel for

¶28

Sri. Nagarajappa A., learned counsel for the appellants.

¶29

¶30

Sri. K.N. Srinivasa, learned counsel for

¶31

respondent No.3.

¶32

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and A.M.A.C.T, Shivamogga, seeking enhancement of amount of compensation.

¶33

The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that on 07.05.2012, the deceased Nagaraj was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-17Q-4723 from Bhadravati to his house. When he arrived near Old Balaji School, B.H. Road, Vidyanagara, a Tanker Lorry bearing registration No.KA-13A-8899 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against the two wheeler. As a result of the aforesaid

¶34

¶35

accident, the deceased Nagaraj sustained injuries and succumbed to the same.

¶36

Thereupon, claimants filed a petition

¶37

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act inter alia on the ground that the accident has taken place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tanker Lorry bearing registration No.KA-13A-8899. It was also pleaded that the deceased was a building and bar vending contractor and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Accordingly, a compensation of Rs.24,50,000/along with interest at 18% p.a. was sought. Respondent No.2 did not appear and was placed exparte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 did not file any objection. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company has filed the statement of objections in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the

¶38

¶39

Tanker Lorry. It was also pleaded that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of the deceased and the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is also exorbitant and unreasonable.

¶40

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues. In order to prove the case of the claimants, Smt. Lalithamma, Thippesha and Sathish were examined as PW-1 to PW-3 and exhibited 18 documents, namely, Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.18. Respondents did not adduce any oral

¶41

evidence but exhibited 2 documents, namely, Spot sketch - Ex.R.1 and Policy - Ex.R.2. The Claims Tribunal vide judgment dated 31.10.2013 inter alia held that the accident has taken place on account of

¶42

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tanker Lorry. It was further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,44,500/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. In view

¶43

¶44

of the aforesaid factual backdrop, the instant appeal

¶45

has been filed.

¶46

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claims Tribunal has failed to ascertain the income of the deceased and have assessed the income at Rs.4,500/- per month. The amount awarded under other heads are also on the lower side.

¶47

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and appropriate and does not call for any interference.

¶48

We have considered the submissions

¶49

made by learned counsel on both sides and perused the record. The only issue which arises for consideration is quantum of compensation. The claims Tribunal has held that the deceased at the

¶50

¶51

time of accident was aged about 40 years. Though

¶52

it was pleaded that accident took place due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Nagaraj, no evidence has been adduced with regard to his income. The tribunal has assessed the income

¶53

of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is on the lower side. Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed as per the guidelines framed by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority which is used in Lok Adalats for determining the notional income of the deceased. The accident has taken place in the year 2012. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed notionally at Rs.7,000/- per month.

¶54

Therefore, in view of the law laid down in

¶55

‘NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

¶56

VS. PRANAY SETHI’, AIR 2017 SC 5157 , 40% has to be added towards ‘Future Prospects’. Thus, if 40% is added to the ‘Future Prospects’, the monthly

¶57

¶58

income of the deceased goes to 9,800/-. Out of the aforesaid amount 1/4<sup>th</sup> amount is required to be deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, ‘Loss of Dependency’ is quantified at 7,350/- per month and taking into account the age of the deceased, if the multiplier 15 is applied, the appellants are entitled to a sum of 13,23,000/(7350x12x15) on account of ‘Loss of Dependency’ instead of `6,07,500/-.

¶59

In addition, the claimants are entitled to

¶60

a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards ‘Loss of Consortium’ in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ MAGMA GENERAL

¶61

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMTIED VS NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM, 2018 ACJ 2782 . Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,60,000/- towards ‘Loss of Consortium’. In addition, claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards ‘Funeral expenses’. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to

¶62

¶63

a sum of Rs.15,13,000/-. The appellants are held

¶64

entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.8,68,500/-.

¶65

The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent mentioned above.

¶66

Needless to state that the enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till the payment is made.

¶67

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

Mds/-

Smt Lalithamma v. M D Revanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lalithamma v. M D Revanna

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

Narayanaswamy Vs Smt P S Kusumalatha

Sri Manjunath C v Vs Sri.Suresh M

S v Karthik Vs Gowda Ganesha Kempa

Dr Poovaiah C.K Vs State of Karnataka

Dr. Hareesh H.T Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Dr.D Pavan Kumar