Partly allowed

Mrs Kalavathi M B v. M/S Navayug Transport Company

Karnataka HC15 Jan 2021MFA/4994/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the High Court modified the Tribunal's award by enhancing compensation for loss of dependency and conventional heads. The court rejected the 50% deduction for personal expenses, directing a 1/3rd deduction instead, and applied the statutory heads for consortium and estate.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 11,76,000 with 6% interest from petition date; liability found intact.

Mrs Kalavathi M B Vs M/S Navayug Transport Company — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

M.F.A.No.4994/2019 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

MRS.KALAVATHI.M.B. W/O BADARI NARAYANA.M.B., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT No.620, 3^RD MAIN, 2^ND CROSS NGEF LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU-560072. ...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI BHANU.H.M., ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

M/S. NAVAYUG TRANSPORT COMPANY PROP. SURESH.G.C.,

¶13

No.189/44, SHALIMA ARCADE

¶14

10^TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN

¶15

BENGALURU-560027.

¶16

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LD., No.460/20 1^ST FLOOR, 8^TH B MAIN ROAD [NEXT TO JAIN TEMPLE] 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560011. …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV. FOR R-2; V/O DATED 15.01.2021, NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH.)

¶18

¶19

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.6736/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU [SCCH-13], PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 05.09.2018 passed in MVC No.6736/2016 on the file of the Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru (SCCH-13) [Tribunal for short].

¶23

The claimant instituted the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of M.B.Badari Narayana in the road traffic accident.

¶24

It was averred in the claim petition that on 24.08.2016 at about 11.30 a.m., the deceased M.B.Badari Narayana while riding the motorcycle

¶25

¶26

bearing registration No.KA-04-HM-9184 near B.B.

¶27

Junction, Mysore road, Bengaluru met with the road traffic accident owing to the actionable negligence of the driver of milk tanker lorry bearing registration No.KA51-A-9702 [offending vehicle]. As a result, he fell down

¶28

and the left back wheel of the lorry ran over his body due to which he died on the spot.

¶29

The claimant being the widow of the deceased,

¶30

has filed the claim petition contending that the deceased was aged about 59 years and was working as a treasurer cum operative cameramen in Karnataka Cine Outdoor Unit Technicians Union and earning Rs.1,975/- per day. Due to untimely death of the deceased, the claimant is suffering from mental agony and loss of dependency etc. On these set of facts and grounds, compensation was sought by the claimant/appellant.

¶31

In response to the notice issued, the respondents appeared through their counsel and

¶32

¶33

resisted the claim by filing objections, denying the petition averments. It was contended that the compensation sought was excessive, arbitrary and baseless.

¶34

On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and answered as per the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment partly allowing the petition awarding compensation of Rs.8,99,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization.

¶35

Being aggrieved, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant

¶37

argued that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the material evidence on record in determining the income of the deceased, denying the future prospects. It was submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in deducting

¶38

¶39

50% of the total income towards the living and personal expenses of the deceased despite the petition filed by the widow of the deceased who was entirely dependent on him for her life. It was further argued that the multiplier of 7 adopted by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the settled legal principles of law.

¶40

Learned counsel for the insurer supporting the impugned judgment and award submitted that the deceased was aged about 61 years as per Ex.P10 – the driving licence and P.M report at Ex.P7. Hence, the age of the deceased was considered as 61 years as on the date of the accident and the multiplier of 7 was adopted in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another , reported in [2009] 6 SCC 121 . It was argued that the claimant was the sole dependent on the deceased deducting 50% of the income towards the personal and living expenses of

¶41

¶42

the deceased is justifiable. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶43

10. We have carefully considered the rival

¶44

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶45

The factum of accident and the death of the

¶46

victim – M.B.Badari Narayana in the road traffic accident in question are not in dispute. Ex.P12 would clinch the issue that the deceased was working in Karnataka Cine Out-Door Technicians Union and was working only for 10 to 12 days in a month with Rs.1,975/- per day. Considering the same, the income of the deceased was determined at Rs.19,750/- p.m., and Rs.2,37,000/- p.a., which in our view cannot be faulted with. We confirm the same having regard to the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P12 which fortifies the same.

¶47

- 7 -

¶48

12. The contention of the claimant that the

¶49

deceased was aged bout 59 years on the date of the accident and future prospects requires to be awarded cannot be countenanced for the reason that Ex.P10 – driving licence and Ex.P7 – P.M report submitted by the claimant herself would indicate the age of the deceased as 61 years which cannot be ignored. As such, the Tribunal has rightly determined the age of the deceased as 61 years and applied the multiplier of 7. No exception can be found with the said finding.

¶50

The Tribunal proceeded to deduct 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased on the ground that the claimant is the sole dependent which cannot be approved for the reason that the deceased was not a bachelor, the claimant was his wife. It is obvious that a person having a family may be the wife as the sole dependent would certainly spend less than what the bachelor would spend for his personal

¶51

¶52

and living expenses. Hence, we deem it appropriate to deduct 1/3^rd of the income towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Applying the same, loss of dependency would work out to Rs.11,06,000/[19,750 x 12 x 7 x 2/3].

¶53

In terms of the ruling the Hon'ble Apex Court

¶54

in the case of National Insurance Company Limited

¶55

Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and New India Assurance Company Limited v/s. Somwati and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644 , the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.70,000/under the conventional heads viz., Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/towards funeral expenses.

¶56

For the reasons aforesaid, the total

¶57

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed as under:

¶58

¶59

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount [in Rs.]
1.	Loss ofdependency	11,06,000/-
2.	Loss ofSpousalConsortium	40,000/-
3.	Loss ofestate	15,000/-
4.	Towardsfuneralexpenses	15,000/-
	Total	11,76,000/-

¶60

Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,76,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶61

Hence, the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶64

ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.11,76,000/- as against Rs.8,99,500/with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶65

10 -

¶66

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

¶67

iv) 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.

¶68

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

¶69

vi) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶70

SD/JUDGE

¶71

SD/JUDGE

¶72

NC.

Mrs Kalavathi M B v. M/S Navayug Transport Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Kalavathi M B v. M/S Navayug Transport Company

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

Rajanna Vs the Managing Director

Smt Jayamma Vs Madhu G Murugan

Smt Rekha Vs M/S Vrl Logistics

Smt Chandramma Vs Mr Kumara

Smt. K. R. Poornima Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Sri H K Lakshmana Vs Sri Krishnamurthy a N