Partly allowed

Smt K Geetha v. Sri Veeranna Chakrasali

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2021MFA/3051/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed both miscellaneous first appeals filed by claimants in two separate motor accident death cases. The Court enhanced the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by calculating a higher notional income for the deceased in one case and granting full loss of consortium in another, modifying the awards while retaining the Tribunal's finding on liabili

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.13,60,000/- in MVC 285 of 2014 and Rs.37,03,515/- in MVC 286 of 2014, with persistent interest at 6% per annum.

Smt K Geetha Vs Sri Veeranna Chakrasali — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3051 OF 2017 (MV)

¶8

C/w MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3052 OF 2017

¶9

In MFA No.3051/2017

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

Smt. K Geetha

¶12

W/o late Kabballi Hanumanthappa Aged about 37 years

¶13

Kum Vandana D/o late Kabballi Hanumanthappa Aged about 18 years

¶14

Master K Vasantha Kumar S/o late Kabballi Hanumanthappa Aged about 15 years

¶15

Kumari Kalpana D/o late Kabballi Hanumanthappa Aged about 13 years

¶16

Appellant Nos. 3 and 4 being Minors represented by Their mother and natural Guardian

¶17

¶18

Smt. K Geetha 1^st Appellant All are R/o Srungarathota Village, Harapanahalli Taluk Davanagere District-577 022.

¶19

...Appellants

¶20

(By Shri Balagangadhar G S, Advocate)

¶21

AND

¶22

Sri Veeranna Chakrasali S/o Rudrappa Aged about 32 years Occ: Driver of Toofan Trax Bearing Regn.No.KA-17/N-3687 R/o Nandibevoor Village Harapanahalli Taluk Davanagere District-577 022.

¶23

Sri Zakir Hussain S. S/o Sarkahavas J M Aged about 34 years Occ: Owner of Toofan Trax Bearing Regn.No.KA-17/N-3687 R/o 370/90, Taskeen Manzil 1^st Ward, Acharya Layout Harapanahalli Taluk Davanagere District-577 022.

¶24

The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Head Office at Oriental House P.B.No.7037, A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road New Delhi-110 002 By its Branch Office at

¶25

¶26

Thiluvalli Complex I Floor, P B Road Davanagere-577 022.

¶27

….Respondents

¶28

(By Shri Shankar Reddy, Advocate for R3; R1 and 2 served)

¶29

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 14.09.2016 passed in MVC No.285 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT-IX, Harapanahalli, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶30

In MFA No.3052/2017

¶31

BETWEEN

¶32

Smt P Munni W/o late P Meyasab Aged about 43 years Occ. Household R/o 11^th Ward Harappanahalli Taluk Davanagere District-577 022.

¶33

Sri P Hajarath Umar S/o late P Meyasab Aged about 25 years Occ. student R/o 11^th Ward Harappanahalli Taluk Davanagere District-577 022.

¶34

Kumari Reshma D/o late P Meyasab Aged about 24 years Occ. student R/o 11^th Ward

¶35

¶36

Harappanahalli Taluk Davanagere District-577 022.

¶37

Kumari P Yasmin Banu D/o late P Meyasab Aged about 22 years Occ. student R/o 11^th Ward Harappanahalli Taluk Davanagere District-577 022.

¶38

Kumari P Naseema Banu D/o late P Meyasab Aged about 21 years Occ. student R/o 11^th Ward Harappanahalli Taluk Davanagere District-577 022.

¶39

...Appellants

¶40

(By Shri Balagangadhar G S, Advocate)

¶41

AND

¶42

Sri Veeranna Chakrasali S/o Rudrappa Aged about 32 years Occ: Driver of Toofan Trax Bearing Regn.No.KA-17/N-3687 R/o Nandibevoor Village Harapanahalli Taluk Davanagere District-577 022.

¶43

Sri Zakir Hussain S. S/o Sarkahavas J M Aged about 34 years Occ: Owner of Toofan Trax Bearing Regn.No.KA-17/N-3687 R/o 370/90, Taskeen Manzil

¶44

¶45

1^st Ward, Acharya Layout Harapanahalli Taluk Davanagere District-577 022.

¶46

The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Head Office at Oriental House P.B.No.7037, A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road New Delhi-110 002

¶47

By its Branch Office at Thiluvalli Complex I Floor, P B Road Davanagere-577 022.

¶48

…Respondents

¶49

(By Shri N Shankaranarayana Bhat, Advocate for R2; Shri C Shankar Reddy, Advocate for R3; R1 served)

¶50

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 14.09.2016 passed in MVC No.286 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT-IX, Harapanahalli, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶51

These Miscellaneous First appeals coming on for Admission, this day, INDIRESH J., delivered the following:

¶52

J U D G M E N T

¶53

These two appeals are by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 14^th September, 2016 passed in MVC

¶54

No.285 and 286 of 2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor

¶55

¶56

Accident Claims Tribunal-IX at Harapanahalli (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal’), seeking enhancement of compensation. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.3051 of 2017 is filed by the claimants in MVC No.285 of 2014 and Miscellaneous First Appeal No.3052 of 2017 is filed by claimants in MVC No.286 of 2014.

¶57

It is the case of claimants in MVC No.285 of 2014 that the deceased Kabballi Hanumanthappa was traveling in autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-17/B-5243 on Harapanahalli-Hosapete Road and when the said autorickshaw reached near Maliyamma temple, at that time, driver of the Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-17/N-3687 dashed to the autorickshaw, the impact of which is one Patil Meyasab (deceased in MVC No.286 of 2014) and Kabballi Hanumanthappa (deceased in MVC No.285 of 2014), succumb to injuries. On service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. Based on the pleadings on record, Tribunal has formulated issues for its consideration. Claimant No.1 in MVC

¶58

¶59

No.285 of 2014 was examined as PW1 and examined another Witness as PW2 and got marked 19 documents as Exhibits P1 to P19. Claimant No.1 in MVC No.286 of 2014 was examined as PW1 and got examined another witness as PW2 and produced 21 documents and same were marked as Exhibits P1 to P21. Respondents examined four witnesses as RW1 to RW4 and produced seven documents as Exhibits R1 to R7. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and award dated 14^th September, 2016 allowed the claim petitions in part and awarded compensation of Rs.8,93,700/- in MVC No.285 of 2014 and Rs.36,38,515/- in MVC No.286 of 2014 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. Being not satisfied with the amount awarded, the claimants are before this Court in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶60

We have heard Shri Balagangadhar G.S., learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimants; Shri Shankarayanaya Bhat learned counsel appearing for Respondent

¶61

¶62

No.2; and Shri C. Shankar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company.

¶63

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶64

appellant/claimants in both appeals, argued that the award of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lesser side which requires to be enhanced in this appeal taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence produced before the Tribunal.

¶65

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the award of compensation made in both the appeals are just and proper and do not call for interference in these appeals.

¶66

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have carefully examined the records and the finding recorded by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that deceased Kabballi Hanumanthappa was traveling in autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-17/B-5243 and deceased Patil Meyasab was traveling in Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-17-N/3687

¶67

¶68

on 09^th July, 2013 and these two vehicles collided each other. On account of the said accident, inmates of autorickshaw-Kabbali Hananthappa and inmate of Tempo Trax-Patil Mayesab, died. The claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, fastened the liability of the respondent jointly and severally and the said finding recorded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court.

¶69

Quantum of compensation in MFA No.3051 of 2017 (MVC 285 of 2014)

¶70

Perusal of the record would indicate that the deceased-Kabballi Hanumanthappa was aged 47 years at the time of accident and the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimants have contended that the deceased was an agriculturist besides having flower business. In the absence of documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased, we are inclined to follow the Lok Adalat chart to assess the notional income taking into consideration the year of the accident. With relevance to the accidents of the year 2013, the notional income that is assessed

¶71

¶72

is Rs.8,000/- per month. The proper multiplier to be applied in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, is 13. There are four dependents, hence, the deduction would be onefourth. In view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, 25% is to be added to the income towards future prospects. Therefore, the loss of dependency would be Rs.11,70,000/(Rs.8,000/- x 25% x 12 x 13 x ¾). There are four dependents and therefore, the claimants are entitled for Rs.1,60,000/(Rs.40,000 x 4) under loss of consortium. Rs.15,000/- each is awarded towards loss of estate and towards funeral expenses. In the result, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,60,000/- as against Rs.8,93,700/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶73

Quantum of compensation in MFA No.3052 of 2017 (MVC No.286 of 2014)

¶74

¶75

In this case, the record indicates that the deceased-

¶76

Patil Meyasab was aged about 49 years at the time of accident and the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at Rs.23,950/- per month after giving necessary deduction of professional tax, as per his salary slips-Exhibits P15 and 16. The proper multiplier to be applied in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, is 13. There are five dependents, hence, the deduction would be one-fourth. In view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, 30% is to be added to the income towards future prospects. After re-assessing the compensation, the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.34,73,515/- towards loss of dependency which do not require any interference. There are five dependents and therefore, the claimants are entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 5) under the head ‘loss of consortium’. Rs.15,000/- each is awarded towards loss of estate and towards funeral expenses. In the result, the claimants are

¶77

¶78

entitled for total compensation of Rs.37,03,515/-/- as against Rs.36,38,515/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

Appeals are allowed in part;

¶81

The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.285 of 2014 is modified holding that the claimants are entitled compensation of Rs.13,60,000/- as against Rs.8,93,700/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realisation;

¶82

The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.286 of 2014 is modified holding that the claimants are entitled compensation of Rs.37,03,515/- as against Rs.36,38,515/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realization;

¶83

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

¶84

¶85

The insurance company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶86

The modified compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

¶87

Draw modified award accordingly.

¶88

Sd/JUDGE

¶89

Sd/JUDGE

¶90

lnn

Smt K Geetha v. Sri Veeranna Chakrasali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt K Geetha v. Sri Veeranna Chakrasali

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

Sri. B. S. Girish Vs Smt Venkatalakshmamma

V K Sampath Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation

Union of India Vs v M Ganesh Major

The Claim Manager Vs Smt Jayalakshmamma

M/S. Tata Aig General Vs Sri. Rangaswamy T

Sannathimmakka Vs H Hanumanthaiah