Partly allowed

Sri. N Krishna Naika v. the Chief Engineer

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2021MFA/215/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appellate judgment enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs.7,35,000 to Rs.19,43,600. The court applied Supreme Court guidelines for notional income and multipliers, adjusting the deceased's income and adding future prospects, while denying interest for the appeal delay period.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.19,43,600 with 6% interest excluding the appeal delay period; Respondent to deposit amount within 90 days.

Sri. N Krishna Naika Vs the Chief Engineer — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶8

MFA NO.215 OF 2018 (MV)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

SRI. N. KRISHNA NAIKA

¶11

S/O B. N. NAIKA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶12

R/O YEMMERAHALLI THANDA SIRA TALUK – 572 135

¶13

KUMARI AKHILA D/O N. KRISHNA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS

¶14

KUMARI POORNIMA D/O N.KRISHNA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS

¶15

SANGEETHA D/O N. KRISHNA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS

¶16

MALE BOY (NOT NAMED) 8 MONTHS OLD BABY PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 5 ARE MINORS REP. BY 1^ST APPELLANT N. KRISHNA NAIKA

¶17

ALL ARE R/AT YEMMERAHALLI THANDA SIRA TALUK – 572 135

¶18

... APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K., ADV.)

¶20

¶21

AND :

¶22

THE CHIEF ENGINEER STATE HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT K.R.CIRCLE BANGALORE – 560 001

¶23

THE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPT. MOTOR BRANCH, K.G.I.D. BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001

¶24

... RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. ROOPA, HCGP)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.783/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.03.2015 passed in MVC No.783/2013 by the Additional

¶30

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sira (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioners therein have preferred this appeal.

¶31

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶32

¶33

The brief facts of the case are that on 21.05.2013,

¶34

at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased Jayamma was crossing the road in front of Jaihind Hotel on Tumkur-Sira NH-4 road, at that time, the driver of Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.KA-42/G-632 came from Tumkur side in

¶35

a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, she suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot.

¶36

Petitioner no.1 is her husband and petitioner nos.2 to 5 are her children. Respondent no.1 is the owner of the bolero vehicle and respondent no.2 is the insurer. The petitioners preferred MVC No.783/2013 before the Tribunal.

¶37

The petitioners got examined two witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. The respondents have not examined any witness nor got marked any documents. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,35,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this appeal.

¶38

¶39

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶40

The factum of accident and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is the quantum of compensation.

¶41

The accident happened in the year 2013. The deceased was aged 30 years at the time of the accident. No evidence is adduced in support of her income. The Tribunal has taken her income at Rs.4,500/- per month. We find it to be on the lower side. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in consultation with Insurance Companies, the notional income to be adopted for the year 2013 is Rs.8,000/- per month. The age of the deceased being 30 years, the multiplier to be adopted is 17. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] , 40% has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects. As there have been 5 dependents, 1/4^th of the income of the deceased is deducted towards personal expenses.

¶42

¶43

Thus, on the count of loss of dependency, the petitioners

¶44

are entitled to Rs.17,13,600/- [Rs.8000/- + 40% X 12 X 17 X 3/4].

¶45

Further, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New

¶46

India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Somwati [(2020)9 SCC

¶47

644] . Thus, together they are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.19,43,600/- as against Rs.7,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶48

Hence, the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i] Appeal is allowed in part.

¶51

ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.19,43,600/- as against Rs.7,35,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from

¶52

¶53

the date of the claim petition till its realization. However, denying the interest for the period of 922 days delay in filing the appeal in terms of the order dated 13.11.2020.

¶54

iii] Respondent No.2 shall deposit the re-assessed total compensation determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

vi] Draw modified award accordingly.

¶58

Sd/- JUDGE

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

hkh.

Sri. N Krishna Naika v. the Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. N Krishna Naika v. the Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri T Lokesha Vs B Siddappa

Sri. M. R. Srinivasa Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vivek N B Vs Sri Mahesh C

Sri Venkataswamy Vs the Managing Director

The Divisional Manager Vs v Jayalaxmi Shetty

Smt Lalithamma Vs Sri Masood Vali B