Partly allowed

Harish(Since Deceased) v. Jhonshon Bangera

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2021MFA/6238/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal to enhance compensation in a motor accident case. The court modified the Tribunal's award, calculating a total of Rs. 19,65,000 based on loss of dependency, medical expenses, funeral expenses, and loss of estate, applying Supreme Court precedents on multipliers and deductions.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of by modifying the Tribunal's judgment to award a total compensation of Rs. 19,65,000 with interest on the enhanced amount.

Harish(Since Deceased) Vs Jhonshon Bangera — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 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.6238 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

HARISH (SINCE DECEASED)

¶11

1(A) VANAJA

¶12

W/O CHANDU MUKARI

¶13

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶14

1(B) CHANDU MUKARI S/O BOGA MUKARI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶15

BOTH ARE R/O DURGA NAGARA KUNJUR, YELLUR VILLAGE POST PANIYOOR UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101.

¶16

... APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI PAVAN CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

JHONSHON BANGERA

¶20

S/O CRISTHOTHAMA I, BANGERA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O MISSION COMPOUND UCHILA, BADA VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101.

¶21

¶22

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MANGALORE REP. BY ITS NEAREST DIVISIONAL OFFICE DIVISIONAL MANAGER SRI RAM ARCADE, 2ND FLOOR OPP: HEAD POST OFFICE UDUPI-576 101.

¶23

... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI B.C. SRIVANNA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶25

¶26

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.714/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT AT UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

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

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, against the judgment dated 04.08.2018 in MVC.714/2015 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT' for short).

¶30

¶31

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 08.04.2016, when Harish was riding his motorcycle from Uchila side towards Paniyoor, at that time, a Tempo Rickshaw came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of the same, the said Harish sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to City Hospital, Udupi on 8.4.2016 and was discharged on 11.5.2015. But later on he was readmitted to KMC and Manipal hospitals for further treatment as an inpatient on 23.5.2015, 03.11.2015, 23.7.2016 and 16.08.2016. In spite of the treatment, he succumbed on 18.8.2016 as a result of head injury suffered by him in the accident.

¶32

The claimants thereupon filed a petition

¶33

under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of accident and was electrician by profession

¶34

and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-

¶35

¶36

per month. It was further pleaded that the 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.36,97,468/- along with interest.

¶37

The Insurance Company filed written

¶38

statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It is denied that due to the negligence of the motorcyclist, the accident took place. The averments made in the petition were denied.

¶39

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶40

the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as

¶41

PW1, the doctor, who treated the deceased, was examined as PW2 and eye witness to the accident was examined as PW3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. The ARTO was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 was marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

¶42

¶43

The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Rickshaw by its driver. It was further held that as a result of the 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.18,55,350/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶44

Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month instead of Rs.20,000/- per month. He further submitted that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is on the lower side and the same requires to be enhanced.

¶45

¶46

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company

¶47

submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the claimants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation. He further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶48

We have considered the submissions made

¶49

by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶50

The only question which arises for our

¶51

consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

¶52

Admittedly, the claimants have not produced

¶53

any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the deceased at the time of

¶54

accident was aged about 28 years and was an electrician by avocation. The claimants have not produced any

¶55

¶56

proof to substantiate their claim that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal having regard to the evidence on record has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶57

In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘ NATIONAL

¶58

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% of the amount has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.14,000/-. Since, the deceased was a bachelor as on the date of accident and number of dependents are two, therefore, 50% of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.7,000/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 28 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘17’ has to be adopted. Therefore, the

¶59

¶60

claimants are held entitled to (Rs.7,000/- x 12 x17.) i.e., Rs.14,28,000/- on account of loss of dependency.

¶61

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 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 DECIDED ON 30.06.2020 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.80,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶62

The deceased was an inpatient for a total period of about 59 days which is evident from the medical records. Hence, the claimants are entitled for a

¶63

¶64

sum of Rs.40,000/towards conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges. The compensation amount of Rs.3,87,350/- awarded towards medical expenses is maintained.

¶65

Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.19,65,000/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount of compensation. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶66

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

BKM

Harish(Since Deceased) v. Jhonshon Bangera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish(Since Deceased) v. Jhonshon Bangera

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

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Sri.L.Chandrashekar

M/S. Adarsh Developers Vs Smt. Suman Rupanagudi

Sri S Jagannath Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

Lakshmi Prabhu Vs Krishna Raj Saralaya

M/S Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Vs the State of Karnataka

Harish M S Vs Balaji B