Partly allowed

Sri Venkataswamy v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2021MFA/6028/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An FIA against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award was filed by parents seeking enhanced compensation for the death of their son in a road traffic accident. The High Court reassessed the deceased's income and recalculated the loss of dependency and other heads of compensation, enhancing the award to Rs.14,55,800.

What did the court decide?

The tribunal's award partially allowed; total compensation enhanced to Rs.14,55,800 with 6% annual interest, excluding interest for the 493-day appeal delay.

Sri Venkataswamy Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6^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.6028/2018 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

1 . SRI VENKATASWAMY S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶10

2 . SMT.LAKSHMINARASAMMA @ NARASAMMA

¶11

W/O VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶12

BOTH ARE R/AT NALLAPPAREDDIPALLI, BAGEPALLI CHIKKABALLAPURA-561207 ...APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI R.V.SHIVANANDAREDDY, ADV.)

¶14

AND :

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC), K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560027 …RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI B.PHALAKSHAIAH, ADV.)

¶17

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC No.207/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SCJ & XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-23), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM

¶18

¶19

PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 14.12.2016 passed in MVC No.207/2016 on the file of the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-23) at Bengaluru ['Tribunal’ for short].

¶23

The claimants instituted the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of P.V.Ramanappa @

¶24

Ramana in the road traffic accident.

¶25

It was averred in the claim petition that on 30.08.2015 at about 3.00 a.m., in front of National Park, Hyderabad to Bangalore NH 44 road at Ananthapuram, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-40-F-1044 driven by its driver in a

¶26

- 3 -

¶27

rash and negligent manner came on the wrong side of

¶28

the road and dashed against the Eicher van bearing registration No.KA-53-A-1746. As a result of which the driver and cleaner of the Eicher van sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

¶29

It was contended that the deceased

¶30

P.V.Ramanappa @ Ramana was earning Rs.30,000/p.m., working as a cleaner besides doing agriculture. Due to untimely death of the deceased, the claimants namely, the parents of the deceased who were dependent on the deceased have suffered loss of dependency, loss of affection in addition to mental agony etc.,

¶31

In response to the notice, the respondent appeared through its counsel and resisted the claim. Written statement was filed denying the petition averments. The primary defence set up was that the claim made was excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary. The

¶32

¶33

accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Eicher van who did not possess a valid driving licence. It was contended that on humanitarian grounds, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was paid to the claimants as an interim compensation.

¶34

On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues and answered allowing the petition in part awarding total compensation of Rs.7,91,000/deducting Rs.15,000/- towards interim compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

¶35

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

¶36

Learned counsel for the claimants submitted

¶37

that the Tribunal has committed a palpable error in awarding a meager compensation much against the

¶38

¶39

settled principles of law. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record inasmuch as determining the income of the deceased. Accordingly, sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶40

Learned counsel for the insurer contended that the Tribunal after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence has rightly awarded the compensation and the same deserves to be confirmed dismissing the appeal.

¶41

We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶42

The fulcrum of dispute revolves around the

¶43

determination of the income of the deceased by the

¶44

Tribunal. As could be seen from the records, in the absence of the proof of income, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased notionally

¶45

¶46

at Rs.7,000/- having regard to the date of the accident. It is settled that in the absence of proof of income, this Court is consistently referring to the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for determining the income of the victim in the road traffic accident notionally. Referring to the same, we deem it appropriate to re-determine the monthly income of the deceased notionally at Rs.9,000/-. Adding 40% towards the future prospects, total income would be Rs.12,600/. Applying the multiplier of 18, deducting 50% towards living and personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs.13,60,800/- [12,600 x 12 x 18 x ½].

¶47

In terms of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others ((2017)16 SCC 680) and New India Assurance Company Limited V/s. Somwati and Others 2020 [SCC ONLINE SC 720] , the claimants

¶48

- 7 -

¶49

are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- under the conventional heads viz., Rs.80,000/- towards filial consortium [Rs.40,000/- to each parent; Rs.15,000/towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.

¶50

For the reasons aforesaid, the total

¶51

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

¶52

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount [in Rs.]
1.	Loss ofdependency	13,60,800/-
2.	Loss of Filial Consortium [Rs.40,000/-eachto the parent]	80,000/-
3.	Loss of Estate	15,000/-
4.	Funeralexpenses	15,000/-
	Total	14,70,800/-

¶53

The interim compensation of Rs.15,000/- paid by

¶54

the respondent requires to be deducted. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.14,55,800/-.

¶55

Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.14,55,800/- with interest at the

¶56

¶57

rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation

¶58

from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶59

Hence, the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶62

ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.14,55,800/(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Eight Hundred only) as against Rs.8,06,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period of 493 days caused in filing the appeal, in terms of the order dated 04.01.2021.

¶63

¶64

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

¶65

iv) The Corporation 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.

¶66

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

¶67

vi) Draw modified award accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

NC.

Sri Venkataswamy v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkataswamy v. the Managing Director

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 T Lokesha Vs B Siddappa

Sri. M. R. Srinivasa Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vivek N B Vs Sri Mahesh C

Sri. N Krishna Naika Vs the Chief Engineer

The Divisional Manager Vs v Jayalaxmi Shetty

Smt Lalithamma Vs Sri Masood Vali B