Partly allowed

Sri Javaregowda v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2021MFA/232/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the judgment of the Claims Tribunal, enhancing death compensation awarded to the family of a deceased pedestrian. The Court set a new total compensation of Rs. 19,33,903/- based on corrected income assessment and Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 19,33,903/- with 6% interest from filing date till realization.

Sri Javaregowda Vs the Divisional Controller — 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.232 OF 2021 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI JAVAREGOWDA S/O LATE MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶11

SRI MAHADEVA H J

¶12

S/O JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶13

SRI PRABHAKAR H J S/O JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF HEBBALU VILLAGE AND POST K R NAGAR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT DOORA VILLAGE AND POST JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 008.

¶15

...APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI BHANU PRAKASH H.V., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

¶19

¶20

(KSRTC) , MYSURU DIVISION MYSURU-570 015.

¶21

...RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶23

¶24

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.09.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.44/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

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 17.09.2019 in MVC.44/2019 passed by the III Additional District Judge and MACT, Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).

¶28

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 06.10.2018, when Sannamma was crossing the road near Hebbalu Bus Stand, at that time, a

¶29

¶30

KSRTC bus came from Chunchanakatte side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Sannamma. As a result of the same, the said Sannamma sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to JSS Hospital, Mysuru, wherein she underwent treatment as an inpatient from 6.10.2018 to 18.10.2018. Despite the treatment, she succumbed to her injuries on 18.10.2018.

¶31

The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of accident and was engaged in coolie work and milk vending business and was earning a sum of Rs.28,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that the accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.38,10,000/- along with interest.

¶32

4. The respondent - KSRTC filed objections denying

¶33

the averments of the petition and the mode and manner of the accident was denied. The age, avocation and income of the deceased were also denied and it was pleaded that the

¶34

¶35

claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive. It was further contended that the accident was solely due to negligence of the deceased Sannamma, who was crossing the road.

¶36

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, eye witnesses to the accident were examined as PW2 and PW3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The respondent got examined one witness as RW1 and got marked two documents as Exs.R1 and R2.

¶37

The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC 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.10,91,351/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶38

¶39

Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that

¶40

the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month instead of Rs.28,000/- 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.

¶41

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.

¶42

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation submitted that that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/p.m. and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶43

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶44

¶45

The only question which arises for our

¶46

consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶47

Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the deceased at the time of accident was aged about 48 years which is evident from the post mortem report at Ex.P3 and was engaged in coolie work and milk vending business. The claimants have not produced any proof to substantiate their claim that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.28,000/- per month. The Tribunal has erred in estimating the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/per month. The accident is of the year 2018. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.12,500/- per month as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal Service Authority.

¶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

¶50

AIR 2017 SC 5157, 25% of the amount has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.15,625/-. Since, the number of dependents are three, 1/3rd of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.10,417/-. Taking into accou0nt the age of the deceased at 48 years at the time of accident, multiplier of ‘13’ has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to (Rs.10,417/- x 12 x 13) i.e., Rs.16,25,052/- on account of loss of dependency.

¶51

In view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & 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 30.06.2020 each of the claimants 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.1,20,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to

¶52

¶53

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

¶54

The compensation amount of Rs.1,58,851/awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is just and proper and the same is maintained.

¶55

Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.19,33,903/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs.8,42,555/- 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.

¶56

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

BKM

Sri Javaregowda v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Javaregowda v. the Divisional Controller

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 Thakur Prasad Vs Suresh D S