Allowed

Siddaiah v. Ananda Krishna B C

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2021MFA/8684/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award sought enhancement of compensation for a fatal road accident. The High Court recalculated the award considering lack of income proof, applying Supreme Court guidelines for future prospects and multipliers, and increasing the total compensation from over 10 lakhs to 15.46 lakhs rupees along with interest. The appeal was disposed of by modif

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 15,46,400/- including loss of dependency, consortium, etc., with 6% interest from the date of filing the petition.

Siddaiah Vs Ananda Krishna B C — Karnataka HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST 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.8684 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SIDDAIAH S/O.CHOWDAIAH

¶11

DEAD BY HIS LR’S

¶12

VASANTHA

¶13

D/O.LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶14

DEVAMMA

¶15

W/O.SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶16

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HONGAHALLI VILLAGE (HULIYAMMANAGUDI) KASABA HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK – 571 111

¶17

... APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI SHARATH S.GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

ANANDA KRISHNA B.C S/O.B.K.CHINNANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NO.17, 1^ST FLOOR, NEW BINNAMANGALA

¶21

¶22

O.M.ROAD, INDRANAGARA BENGALURU – 560 038

¶23

SABU SHUMSUDEEN S/O.SHAMSUDEEN H AGED MAJOR NO.70, NEST FERNS CITY DODDA NEKUNDI, MARTHALLI BENGALURU – 560 037

¶24

IFFCA-TOKIO GEN.INS,CO,LTD KSCMF BUILDING, 3^RD FLOOR 3^RD BLOCK, NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU – 560 052 . RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶26

¶27

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.05.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.269/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC & MACT, GUNDLUPET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION .

¶28

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

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’,

¶31

for short) is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement

¶32

of the amount of compensation against the judgment

¶33

¶34

dated 24.05.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

¶35

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 13.02.2016, when the deceased Prakasha was proceeding on his motor bike on Gundlupet – Calicut Road, a Innova car bearing Registration No.KA-51-MB-4634, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor bike of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

¶36

The claimants thereupon filed a petition

¶37

under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and was doing mason work and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on

¶38

¶39

account of rash and negligent driving of the Innova car by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,31,50,000/- along with interest.

¶40

The Insurance Company filed written

¶41

statement stating that the respondent No.1 – driver was not holding effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident and as such committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the jurisdictional police have not forwarded the relevant documents to the insurer within thirty days as required under Section 158(6) of M V Act. Hence, the Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶42

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and another witness i.e. Venkatesh s/o Marisiddaiah was examined as PW2 and got exhibited

¶43

¶44

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. 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 Innova car 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

¶45

the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,88,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶46

Learned counsel for the claimants submitted

¶47

that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month and in any case, the same ought to have been taken as per the guidelines framed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has

¶48

erred in not making an addition to the tune of 40% to

¶49

¶50

the income of the deceased on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157 . 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. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that no evidence has been adduced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.7,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶51

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

¶52

record.

¶53

¶54

The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the

¶55

quantum of compensation.

¶56

Admittedly, the claimants have not produced

¶57

any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that deceased at the time of accident was aged about 25 years and worked as Mason.

¶58

The claimants examined PW2 – Venkatesh to substantiate their claimant that the deceased was working as Mason and he was paid wages of Rs.1,000/-

¶59

per day with meal and break fast. However, no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the said claim. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month instead of Rs.9,500/- per month, which is normally assessed by this Court and the Lok Adalath while deciding the claims in the year 2016. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of

¶60

¶61

the Supreme Court in ‘ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND

¶62

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.13,300/-. Since, the 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.6,650/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased who was 25 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘18’ has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to (Rs.9,500/- + 40% = 13,300/- x 12 x 18 x 50%) i.e. Rs.14,36,400/- on account of loss of dependency.

¶63

In view of 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

¶64

INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR

¶65

¶66

AND ORS.’ IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020

¶67

DECIDED ON 30.06.2020 each of the claimant’s are

¶68

entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss 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. The amount of compensation awarded under the head 'medical expenses' is maintained. Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.15,46,400/-. Since the accident is of the year 2016, the prevailing rate of interest for the year 2016 in respect of fixed deposits for one year in nationalized banks being 6%, the aforesaid amounts of compensation 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.

¶69

¶70

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

bkm

Siddaiah v. Ananda Krishna B C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddaiah v. Ananda Krishna B C

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

Smt Chandramma Vs Rafeeq M

Divisional Controller Vs H v Geetha

Sri H. Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs M/S. Gmr Energy Ltd.

Sri.Nagendra Vs M/S. Sujala Pipes P Ltd.

Sri Range Gowda Subedar C Vs Mysuru Urban Development Authority