Partly allowed

Sri H K Lakshmana v. Sri Krishnamurthy a N

Karnataka HC15 Jan 2021MFA/924/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation from Rs.4,90,000/- to Rs.13,70,000/- in a motor accident appeal, applying Supreme Court precedents to fix notional income and calculate loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.13,70,000/-. Respondent Corporation to deposit amount within 90 days. Interest at 6% p.a.

Sri H K Lakshmana Vs Sri Krishnamurthy a N — Motor Accident Claims | 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.924 OF 2019 (MV)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

SRI. H. K. LAKSHMANA

¶11

S/O LATE KALA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS CANARA BANK EMPLOYEE

¶12

MR. PAWAN KUMAR L. S/O H.K. LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶13

MISS NIRMITHA L. D/O H. K. LAKSHMANA AGED 24 YEARS

¶14

ALL ARE R/O NEAR POST OFFICE KUTTA TOWN AND POST VIRAJPET TALUK

¶15

KODAGU POST – 571 218

¶16

... APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND :

¶19

SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY A. N. S/O NAGARAJU AGED 31 YEARS K.S.R.T.C. BUS DRIVER, 1^ST DEPOT

¶20

¶21

NEAR BANNY MANTAPA GRAMANTHARA VIBHAGA MYSORE PIN-570 001

¶22

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC BUS DRIVER, 1^ST DEPOT NEAR BANNY MANTAPA GRAMANTHARA VIBHAGA MYSORE PIN-570 001 ... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ K., ADV. FOR R2; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.01.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.05.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.184/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, VIRAJPET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 18.05.2018 passed in MVC No.184/2015 by the Motor

¶28

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

¶29

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

¶30

to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶31

¶32

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶33

That on 06.05.2015 at about 7.30 a.m., petitioner

¶34

no.1 along with his deceased wife Smt. Meena were traveling on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-12/J3974 from Kuttathamma temple to their house near Kutta post office. When they reached near a place called CBT arcade building at 9.45 a.m., a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-09/F-3770 being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner. Consequent to which, his wife Smt. Meena got injured and succumbed to the same. Hence, the petitioners preferred MVC No.184/2015 before the Tribunal and claimed a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

¶35

Petitioner no.1 is the husband of the deceased and petitioner nos.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. Respondent no.1 is the driver of the offending bus and respondent no.2 is the Corporation to which the offending bus belongs to.

¶36

¶37

After service of notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed their objections.

¶38

The petitioners, to prove their case, examined one witness as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. The respondents examined one witness as RW.1 but have not got marked any documents.

¶39

Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,90,000/along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization in favour of the petitioners. Not satisfied by the same, the petitioners have preferred this appeal.

¶40

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶41

The factum of accident and negligence on the part of respondent no.1 is not in dispute. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is justified and reasonable?

¶42

¶43

The accident happened in the year 2015. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 43 years. No evidence is adduced to prove her income. Hence, the Tribunal has adopted the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. We find the notional income adopted by the Tribunal 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 2015 is fixed at Rs.9,000/- per month. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] , 25% of the income of the deceased has to be added towards future prospects. Given her age, a multiplier of 14 has to be adopted. Given the number of dependents, 1/3^rd of the income has to be deducted towards her personal expenses. Thus, on the count of loss of dependency, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.12,60,000/[Rs.9,000/- + 25% X 12 X 14 X 2/3].

¶44

¶45

As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Somwati [(2020)9 SCC 644] , petitioner nos.1 and 3 are entitled to a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards loss of consortium.

¶46

The petitioners are further entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.13,70,000/- as against Rs.4,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶47

Hence, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i] Appeal is allowed in part.

¶50

ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.13,70,000/- as against Rs.4,90,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶51

¶52

iii] The Corporation 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.

¶53

iv] Appellant No.1 shall be entitled to 50% and appellant Nos.2 and 3 shall be entitled to 25% each of the enhanced compensation amount. Out of this, 50% of the amount shall be kept in the fixed deposit in their respective names in any Nationalized Bank for a period of five years free from encumbrance with liberty to draw accrued periodical interest. Remaining amount of 50% shall be released in their favour on proper identification.

¶54

v] The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability remains intact.

¶55

vi] Draw modified award accordingly.

¶56

Sd/- JUDGE

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

hkh.

Sri H K Lakshmana v. Sri Krishnamurthy a N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H K Lakshmana v. Sri Krishnamurthy a N

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

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

Mrs Kalavathi M B Vs M/S Navayug Transport Company