Partly allowed

Navyashree L v. Royal Sundaram Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2021MFA/5430/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court enhanced compensation awarded to the deceased's dependents. The Court modified the Tribunal's calculation by using gross salary, applying a 50% addition for future prospects, and granting enhanced amounts for consortium and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.10,42,416 awarded with interest at 6% p.a.; Tribunal judgment modified.

Navyashree L Vs Royal Sundaram Gen Ins Co. Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3RD 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.5430 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

NAVYASHREE L

¶11

W/O ARUN KUMAR R

¶12

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶13

MAST. KUSHAL GOWDA A S/O ARUN KUMAR R

¶14

AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS

¶15

(REP. BY APPELLANT NO.1 AS NATURAL GUARDIAN)

¶16

LAKSHMAMMA

¶17

W/O RAMAKRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶18

RAMAKRISHNE GOWDA

¶19

S/O THIMMAIAH

¶20

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT D. TUMAKURU VILLAGE AT POST, HIRESAVE HOBLI

¶21

CHANNARAYAPATTANA

¶22

HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116.

¶23

...APPELLANTS

¶24

(BY SRI SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

ROYAL SUNDARAM GEN. INS. CO. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER

¶27

¶28

NO.186, GROUND FLOOR RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX 1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU-560 027.

¶29

DINESH G

¶30

S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.53/23 1ST J MAIN, 1ST BLOCK NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU-560 072.

¶31

...RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI RAVI S. SAMPRATHI ADV., FOR R-1)

¶33

¶34

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.4181/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-24), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶35

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

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

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 claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, against the judgment dated 27.07.2018 in MVC. 4181/2017 passed by the XXII Additional

¶38

¶39

Small Causes Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT' for short).

¶40

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 26.12.2016, the deceased Arun Kumar. R., being a Police constable was on duty and was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02-EL-0831. When he was standing with his motor cycle on Magadi Main road, near Bellada Hanumanthappa Cross and giving instructions to the driver of the lorry which was wrongly parked at no parking area on the side of the road, at that time all of a sudden one Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-41-B-6723 driven by its driver with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came from the Kottige playa towards Byadarahalli and dashed against the deceased . As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

¶41

The claimants thereupon filed a petition

¶42

under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on

¶43

¶44

the ground that the deceased was a Police Constable and was drawing a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. It

¶45

was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,00,000/- along with interest.

¶46

The insurance company filed written

¶47

statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was also pleaded that the driver of the lorry 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.

¶48

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶49

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

¶50

¶51

recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and examined one witness as P.W.2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. The respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry 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.43,42,400/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶52

Learned counsel for the claimant submitted

¶53

that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.19,7999/- per month instead of Rs.24,250/- p.m. which was last drawn gross

¶54

¶55

salary. It is further submitted that the sums awarded under the heads ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’ are on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably.

¶56

On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶57

We have considered the submissions made

¶58

by learned counsel for the parties 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 Tipper lorry. The deceased was aged 32 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.

¶59

The claimants produced Ex.P.14-Pay Slip and

¶60

Ex.P.15-Bank Statement of the deceased which discloses

¶61

¶62

that the deceased was getting gross salary of Rs.24,250/-and after deducting Rs.4,436/- he was getting net salary of Rs.19,779/- p.m. However, the Tribunal has taken the net salary for the purpose of determining compensation payable towards loss of dependency instead of taking the gross salary. Hence, the gross salary of the deceased at Rs. 24,050/- (after deducting Rs.200/- towards professional tax) is taken for awarding compensation under the head loss of dependency.

¶63

The deceased was aged 32 years and he was State Government employee and was paid fixed salary. 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

¶64

50% of the assessed income is to be added towards future prospects. Hence, by assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.24,050/- applying multiplier of '16' deducting 1/4th towards personal

¶65

¶66

expenses and adding 50% of the income towards future prospects, the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.51,94,800/- towards loss of dependency as against Rs. 42,72,384/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶67

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 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. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.1,60,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶68