Partly allowed

Smt Prema M v. Girish S

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2021MFA/2985/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident claim appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the claimants from Rs. 24,80,040 to Rs. 25,55,040. The Court fixed an additional head for loss of consortium at Rs. 1,20,000 based on Supreme Court precedents. While rejecting the claim for retrospective salary revision due to lack of proof, the Court allowed the appeal in part to grant the enhanced amount wit

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation to Rs. 25,55,040/- including loss of consortium of Rs. 1,20,000/- directed to be deposited with interest at 6% p.a.

Smt Prema M Vs Girish S — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶7

MFA NO.2985 OF 2019 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SMT PREMA M W/O LATE SHANKARAPPA, 39 YEARS HOUSE WIFE,

¶10

R/O RAJAJINAGAR, BIRUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK,

¶11

CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST. - 577 548.

¶12

THRUPTI. S

¶13

D/O LATE SHANKARAPPA, AGE: 16 YEARS, STUDENT R/O RAJAJINAGAR, BIRUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST. - 577 548.

¶14

MOHAN

¶15

S\O LATE SHANKARAPPA, 12 YEARS, STUDENT/ , R/O RAJAJINAGAR, BIRUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST. - 577 548.

¶16

APPELLANTS 2 TO 3 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AS A

¶17

¶18

NATURAL GUARDIANI, I.E 1^ST APPELLANT, STUDENT

¶19

...APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA R C, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

GIRISH S S/O SHANKARAPPA, 32 YEARS, R/O LINGADAHALLI VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST. - 577 228.

¶23

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 4^TH FLOOR, FORTUNE BUILDING, OPPOSITE ATHENA HOSPITAL, FALNIR,MANGALURU CITY - 575 001 REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶24

….RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. E.I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 NOTICE TO R-1 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 11.02.2021)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.96 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC., AND MMACT, TARIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, against the judgment dated 10.01.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

¶31

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 09.08.2015 at about 1.45 p.m. the deceased S.Shankarappa was riding the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-18-B-6494 from Ballavara to Lingadahalli on the left side of the road and near Kallahalu Dibba, one Mahindra Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-18/B-7221 driven by the respondent No.1 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the

¶32

¶33

deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶34

The claimants thereupon filed a petition

¶35

under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 52 years at the time of accident and was working as Panchayath Development Officer at Balliganur Panchayath, Birur Hobli, Kadur Taluk and was earning a sum of Rs.45,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of negligence of the driver of the Mahindra Bolero vehicle. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest.

¶36

On service of summons, the respondent

¶37

Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their respective written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶38

¶39

Respondent No.2 has contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. The liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶40

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed issues as to whether the claimants are entitled to compensation and an additional issue whether the respondent No.2 proves that the respondent No.1 had no valid DL to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R2. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia ,

¶41

¶42

held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.24,80,040/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, this appeal has been filed.

¶43

The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶44

Firstly, that the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.41,000/- in view of revision of salary of the deceased which were implemented on the recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission.

¶45

Secondly, that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA

¶46

¶47

GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM

¶48

reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 , each of the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶49

Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants prays for allowing the appeal.

¶50

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶51

the Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment. Hence, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶52

We have considered the submissions made

¶53

by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶54

It is not in dispute that deceased died in

¶55

the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Therefore, the only issue which arises for our

¶56

¶57

consideration is with regard to the quantum of compensation. It is trite law that the income of the deceased at the time of death alone is required to be taken and not with reference to any future revision in pay scales and that any increase in the income on account of pay revisions which have taken place subsequent to the death of the deceased is covered in the future prospects awarded to him as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶58

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI

¶59

AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157. However, it is also settled in law that if pay revision takes place, though subsequent to the death of the victim of the accident and is given retrospective effect from the date anterior to the date of death, benefit of increase of salary cannot be denied. After all, Tribunal is enjoined to determine the income of the deceased at the time of accident. [SEE:

¶60

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. JASHUBEN & ORS.

¶61

2008 (4) SCC 162]

¶62

¶63

In the instant case, nothing is brought on

¶64

record to prove that the salary of the deceased was revised from a date anterior to his death and that the revision in salary, if any, was given retrospective effect. Even the evidence of PW-2 Dr. Devarajanaika T. M., who is the employer of the deceased, is lacking in this regard and is to the effect that if the deceased had been alive today, he would have been earning Rs.41,032/- on account of revision in pay scale as per the recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission. Therefore, we cannot agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal erred in not accounting for the revision in pay scale as per the recommendations of the 6^th Pay Commission in the computation of income of the deceased. Thus, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of dependency' is maintained.

¶65

¶66

As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (supra) , each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶67

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the

¶68

following compensation:

¶69

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	24,05,040
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of consortium	1,20,000
(40,000 x 3)
Total	25,55,040

¶70

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.25,55,040/as against Rs.24,80,040/- as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶71

¶72

The Insurance Company is directed to

¶73

deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶74

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶75

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part.

¶76

SD/JUDGE

¶77

SD/JUDGE

¶78

Smt Prema M v. Girish S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Prema M v. Girish 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

M/S. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Vs Appellate Authority for Industrial and

Bangalore Development Authority Vs the State of Karnataka

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Sri Renukaiah

The Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs the Vysya Bank Ltd.

Smt B S Jyothi Vs M/S C I Concrete India (P) Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Ing Vysya Bank Limited