Partly allowed

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

Karnataka HC15 Jan 2021MFA/8252/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly, enhancing the motor accident compensation from Rs.18,64,000/- to Rs.21,10,717/- based on Supreme Court precedents regarding notional income and dependency multipliers. The court directed the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount within 90 days.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.21,10,717/- ordered to be deposited by the insurance company within 90 days with interest at 6% p.a.

Smt. K. R. Poornima Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^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.8252 OF 2019 (MV)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

SMT. K. R. POORNIMA W/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶11

SRI. SANJU S. KUMAR S/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶12

SRI. SHIVANNA S/O LATE KARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS

¶13

SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶14

ALL ARE R/O PARATHI NILAYA 2^ND MAIN, 8^TH CROSS, ASHIKA NAGAR TUMAKURU – 527 103

¶15

... APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.)

¶17

AND :

¶18

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, 1^ST CROSS

¶19

¶20

MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR M.G.ROAD, GUBBI – 572 216 REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶21

SRI. MANJUNATHA T. H. S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA MAJOR R/O SIDLU BASAVANNA NAGAR NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL GUBBI – 572 216, TUMAKURU DIST.

¶22

... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10.12.2020 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.806/2017 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 07.12.2018 passed in MVC No.806/2017 by the Motor

¶28

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tumakuru (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioners therein have preferred this appeal.

¶29

¶30

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

¶31

to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶32

The brief facts of the case are as follows: That on 26.01.2017, petitioner no.1 and her husband Shivakumar were traveling on a motorbike bearing registration No.KA-06/EF-3259 and when they reached Sathyamangala, at about 6.00 p.m., a Car bearing registration No.KA-05/MF-4212 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorbike because of which, the husband of petitioner no.1 sustained fatal injuries and died.

¶33

Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased, petitioner no.2 is the son of the deceased, petitioner no.3 is the father of the deceased and petitioner no.4 is the mother of the deceased. Respondent no.1 is the owner of the offending Car and respondent no.2 is the Insurance Company with which the Car was duly insured.

¶34

¶35

After service of notice, respondent no.1 did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex parte . Respondent no.2 appeared through its Counsel and filed its objections.

¶36

The petitioners, to prove their case, examined one witness as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18. Respondent no.2 examined RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R3.

¶37

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 offending Car and has awarded a compensation of Rs.18,64,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit in favour of the petitioners. Not satisfied by the same, the petitioners have preferred this appeal.

¶38

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

The Tribunal based on the evidence concluded that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Car. The same is not questioned in this

¶40

¶41

appeal. The only question that needs to be considered is the quantum of compensation.

¶42

The accident happened in the year 2017. As there was no evidence adduced as to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has considered Rs.9,500/- per month as his notional income. The deceased was aged 45 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has added 30% of his income towards future prospects. It has deducted 1/3^rd of his income towards personal expenses. The said conclusion is erroneous. 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 2017 is fixed at Rs.11,000/per month. Further, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] , when the job of the deceased is not established to be a permanent one, 25% of

¶43

his income has to be added towards future prospects. Given the number of dependents, 1/3^rd needs to be

¶44

¶45

deducted towards his personal expenses. Given his age, a multiplier of 14 needs to be adopted. Thus, on the count of loss of dependency, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,40,000/- [Rs.11,000/- + 25% X 12 X 14 X 2/3].

¶46

As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Somwati [(2020)9 SCC 644] , the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Thus, they are totally entitled to Rs.160,000/- towards loss of consortium.

¶47

The petitioners are also entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, the Tribunal based on the evidence has awarded a sum of Rs.380,717/- towards medical expenses. The petitioners are also entitled to the same. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs.21,10,717/as against Rs.18,64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶48

¶49

13. Hence, the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i] Appeal is allowed in part.

¶52

ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.21,10,717/- as against Rs.18,64,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶53

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

¶54

iv] The insurance company shall deposit the reassessed 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.

¶55

v] The modified compensation shall be disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

¶56

¶57

vi] Draw modified award accordingly.

¶58

vii] All the pending I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.

¶59

Sd/- JUDGE

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

hkh.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Sri H K Lakshmana Vs Sri Krishnamurthy a N

Mrs Kalavathi M B Vs M/S Navayug Transport Company