Partly allowed

Kumari. Shreya @ Rakshitha v. Halappa. H @ Haleshappa

Karnataka HC16 Jan 2021MFA/751/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed this motor vehicle accident appeal, enhancing the compensation awarded to the appellants who lost a family member in a rash and negligent driving incident. The Court raised the award from approximately Rs. 7.24 lakhs to Rs. 17.51 lakhs, applying Supreme Court standards for notional income and multipliers, while affirming liability.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 17,51,307/- with 6% annual interest from the date of the claim petition till realization. Liability and apportionment remain intact.

Kumari. Shreya @ Rakshitha Vs Halappa. H @ Haleshappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶8

MFA NO.751 OF 2019 (MV)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

KUMARI SHREYA @ RAKSHITHA D/O G. H. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, MINOR R/AT G.BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

¶11

REP. BY HER GRAND MOTHER SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE G. HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 530

¶12

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE G. HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE/HOME MAKER R/AT G.BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 530 ... APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. SATISH CHANDRA R., ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

AND :

¶16

HALAPPA H @ HALESHAPPA S/O VEERAPPA

¶17

DRIVER OF MARUTHI OMNI KA-17-P-0944 R/AT HOLESIRIGERE VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK – 577 516

¶18

HANUMANTHAPPA G. H. S/O LATE HALAPPA G. SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶19

2(a) SMT. SAVITHA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA G.H. AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS AGRICULTURIST G.BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 530

¶20

2(b) CHI. BHARATH G.H. S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA G. H. AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. SAVITHA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA G. H. AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶21

AGRICULTURIST

¶22

G.BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE

¶23

HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 530

¶24

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THE MANAGER, PRAVASI MANDIRA ROAD DAVANAGERE – 577 001

¶25

SHIVARAJ

¶26

S/O BASAPPA, BUS DRIVER

¶27

BADGE NO.1517, KSRTC BUS NUMBER KA-18-F-0673, ADARSHA NAGAR

¶28

¶29

BEHIND KSRTC DEPOT, 1^ST CROSS CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101

¶30

THE DIVISION CONTROLLER KSRTC, CHIKKAMAGALURU DEPOT (OWNER OF BUS KA-17-F-1163) CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101 ... RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR R3; SRI. N.KUMAR, ADV. FOR R5; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.01.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH. VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 16.01.2021 NOTICE TO R2 AND R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶32

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.412/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC AND ADDITIONAL MACT HARIHAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶33

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 22.11.2018 passed in MVC No.412/2015 by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Harihar (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioners therein have preferred this appeal.

¶36

¶37

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶38

referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶39

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶40

That on 10.05.2014, at about 4.00 a.m. in the morning, petitioner no.1 along with her deceased mother, were traveling in a Maruti omni car bearing registration No.KA-17-P-944 near Chelur village, Honnali Taluk, at that time, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-18/F-673 came from the opposite direction and the driver of the omni car in which petitioner no.1 and her mother were traveling drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the KSRTC bus. Consequently, petitioner no.1 sustained injuries and her mother Sunitha expired. Due to the death of the mother of petitioner no.1 in the accident, the petitioners preferred MVC No.412/2015 before the Tribunal. Petitioner No.2 is the grand mother of petitioner No.1

¶41

¶42

Respondent no.1 is the driver of the omni car, respondent no.2-Hanumanthappa G.H. since dead, was the owner of the omni car and his LRs. are represented as respondent nos.2(a) and (b) and respondent no.3 is the Insurance Company with which the omni car was insured. Respondent no.4 is the driver of the KSRTC bus which was involved in the accident and respondent no.5 is the Corporation to which the KSRTC bus belongs to.

¶43

The petitioners, to prove their case, examined PW.1 to PW.8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P38. The respondents examined RW.1 and RW.2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R3.

¶44

Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the omni Car which was duly insured with respondent no.3-Insurance Company and on account of the death of the mother of petitioner no.1, it has

¶45

¶46

awarded a sum of Rs.7,24,107/- as compensation. Not satisfied by the same, the petitioners have preferred this appeal.

¶47

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶48

The accident happened in the year 2014. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 32 years. Further, due to the injuries suffered, she was admitted to a hospital and incurred medical expenses of Rs.1,18,107/- before her death. No proof of income was adduced by the petitioners. Hence, the Tribunal has adopted the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. We find the same to be on the lower side. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in consultation with the Insurance Companies, the notional income in the absence of proof of income for the year 2014 is fixed at Rs.8,500/- per month. Given the age of the deceased as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance

¶49

¶50

Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 40%

¶51

has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects. Given her age, a multiplier of 16 has to be adopted. Given the number of dependents, 1/3^rd of the income needs to be deducted towards her personal expenses. Thus, on the count of loss of dependency, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,23,200/- [Rs.8,500/- + 40% X 12 X 16 X 2/3].

¶52

As there are two dependents, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶53

in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Somwati

¶54

[(2020)9 SCC 644] . Thus, they are totally entitled to Rs.80,000/- towards loss of consortium.

¶55

The petitioners are also entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,18,107/towards medical expenses as determined by the Tribunal. Thus, in all, the

¶56

¶57

petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.17,51,307/- as against Rs.7,24,107/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶58

Hence, the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i] Appeal is allowed in part.

¶61

ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to

¶62

Rs.17,51,307/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred Seven only) as against Rs.7,24,107/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶63

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

¶64

¶65

iv] The insurance company shall deposit the re-assessed total compensation 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 shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

¶67

vi] Draw modified award accordingly.

¶68

Sd/- JUDGE

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

hkh.

Kumari. Shreya @ Rakshitha v. Halappa. H @ Haleshappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari. Shreya @ Rakshitha v. Halappa. H @ Haleshappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

The Divisional Manager/Branch Manager Vs Sri Channalakkaiah

Smt Sharadhamma Vs Halappa H @ Haleshappa

Smt Thippamma Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.