Allowed

Smt Chandrakala v. M Manju @ Manjunatha

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2021MFA/3211/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mysuru Bench allowed an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal judgment, enhancing compensation from Rs. 11,73,298 to Rs. 13,84,898 based on notional income, future prospects, and specific heads of loss including consortium and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 13,84,898 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

Smt Chandrakala Vs M Manju @ Manjunatha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF JUNE, 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. 3211 OF 2020 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶11

KENDAGANNA R S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶12

SHRUTHI D/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT 1026, BANK COLONY 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS BODADI VILLAGE KASABA HOLBI MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶14

... APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

M. MANJU@ MANJUNATHA S/O MALLAIAH

¶18

¶19

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT 1066, 8TH CROSS ASHOKAPURAM MYSURU - 570 009.

¶20

NAGARAJU K. S/O KALININGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT 29/2, ASWALU VILLAGE BILIKERE HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK

¶21

THE MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, 414, VEER SAVARKAR MARG, NEAR SIDDIVINAYAKA TEMPLE PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI.

¶22

... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(V/O DTD:24.05.2021 NOTICE TO R1 D/W R-3 SERVED)

¶24

¶25

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.897/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDTITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, PARLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the MV Act is filed by the claimants against the judgment dated 27.10.2018 in MVC No.897/2015 passed by the Judge, Addl. Small Causes

¶29

¶30

and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶31

Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the deceased Ramegowda after loading the vegetables and fruits in TATA Ace vehicle bearing Regn No.KA-45-7628 was proceeding from Hasavalu village to Hunsur market to unload the vegetables and at that time the 1st respondent drove the Tata Ace vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to which RameGowda who was traveling in the said vehicle sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to BGS Apollo Hospital, Mysuru and succumbed to accidental injuries on 5.4.2015.

¶32

The Claimants there upon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged 50 years at the time of the accident and was engaged in business and agricultural work and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- p.m. It was further pleaded that the accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tata Ace vehicle

¶33

¶34

by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of 41,50,000/-.

¶35

The insurance company filed written statement,

¶36

in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. The Insurance Company denied that on 21.3.2015, the deceased Ramegowda was traveling in the offending vehicle after loading fruits and vegetables and due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No.1, the vehicle overturned resulting in causing the death of Ramegowda. It was also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and that the liability of the Insurance Company, if any, would be subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive.

¶37

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1

¶38

¶39

and doctor was examined as P.W.2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P.21. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company got examined one witness as RW1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tata Ace vehicle by its driver. It was further held, that as a result of 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.11,73,298/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶40

Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- per month instead of Rs.9,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the sums awarded under the head are on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the same may be enhanced.

¶41

¶42

The 3rd respondent - Insurance Company though served with notice has remained unrepresented.

¶43

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle. The deceased was aged 50 years as on the date of the accident. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶44

Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that deceased at the time of accident was doing agricultural work and business. The accident is of the year 2015. Therefore, if notional income of the deceased is assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, notional income comes to Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶45

¶46

In view of decision of the Apex Court in the case of ‘ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157 10% of the assessed income is to be added towards future prospects. Hence, by assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- applying multiplier of '13' deducting, 1/3rd towards personal expenses and adding 10% of the income towards future prospects, the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,29,600/- towards loss of dependency as against Rs. 8,58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶47

In view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM

¶48

& 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 AIR 2020 SC 3076 each of the claimant’s are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection which comes to Rs.1,20,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on

¶49

¶50

account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. The compensation amount of Rs.2,05,298/- awarded towards medical expenses is maintained.

¶51

Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs13,84,898/- as against Rs. 11,73,298/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶52

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶53

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Smt Chandrakala v. M Manju @ Manjunatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chandrakala v. M Manju @ Manjunatha

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

Toyota Industries Engine India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Additional Commissioner of

Sri. Gangadhar. K. M. Vs Smt. Vijayalakshmi Aramane

Navyashree L Vs Royal Sundaram Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

D.R.Lakshmi @ Lakshamma Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt Masthamma Eshwara Naik Vs Sri Dhinda Magdoom Hammed

The Mysore City Corporation Vs Smt Leela