Partly allowed

Shantha v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2021MFA/9523/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed the appeal, modifying the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's judgment to enhance compensation. The court corrected the notional income assessment, adjusted the deduction for personal expenses to one-third based on four dependents, and increased the total compensation to Rs. 24,07,600 with 6% interest, citing reliance on Karnataka Legal Services Authority guidelines

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of by modifying the Tribunal's judgment to award total compensation of Rs. 24,07,600 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition.

Shantha Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY 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.9523 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHANTHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O RAMESH

¶11

RAMESH

¶12

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O CHALLA

¶13

SANGEETHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS D/O RAMESHA APPELLANT NO.3 IS UNSOUND MIND REP: BY NATURAL FRIEND GUARDIAN MOTHER SHANTHA

¶14

KAVITHA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS D/O RAMESHA

¶15

ALL ARE R/O H.NO.2-94 A NEAR VISHNUMOORTHI TEMPLE KELARKALABETTU POST SANTHEKATTE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 105.

¶16

... APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. DURGAMBA MOTORS N.H.17, HANGALOOR KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶21

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

¶22

... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶24

¶25

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.580/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

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

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

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

¶29

of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated 20.07.2017 in MVC No.580/2017 passed by the

¶30

¶31

Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Udupi.

¶32

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 07.03.2017, the deceased Krishna along with one Vishwanath were traveling from Santhekatte towards Manipal via Ambagilu Perampalli as passengers in a Stage Carriage bearing Regn. No.KA20B-3039. When they reached near Perampalli bus stop, the driver of the Stage Carrier on noticing the vehicle coming from the opposite direction without reducing the speed, suddenly applied brake on curved road, as a result, the passengers including the deceased who were standing in the stage carriage vehicle were thrown out and fell on the road due to which, the Krishna sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

¶33

The claimants thereupon filed a petition

¶34

under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 24 years

¶35

¶36

at the time of accident and was a painter by profession and earning a Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.34,84,000/- along with interest.

¶37

The respondents filed written statement, in

¶38

which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive.

¶39

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶40

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and examined one eye witness as PW2

¶41

and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8.

¶42

The respondents neither examined any witnesses but

¶43

¶44

got exhibited the Insurance Policy at Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Stage Carriage vehicle 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.15,42,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

¶45

Learned counsel for the claimants submitted

¶46

that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month instead of Rs.15,000/- per month having regard to the fact that the deceased was working as Painter. He further submitted that the Tribunal has deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd since there were four dependents, though the deceased

¶47

¶48

was a bachelor. In support of his submission, he has placed a reliance on the decision of the SARALA VERMA & ORS -VSDELHI TRANSPOORT CORPORATION & ANR. (Civil Appeal

¶49

No.3483/2008).

¶50

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

¶51

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.10,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

¶52

just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶53

We have considered the submissions made

¶54

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

¶55

¶56

The only question which arises for our

¶57

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

¶58

Admittedly, the claimants have not produced

¶59

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 24 years and was painter by profession. Therefore, if notional income of the deceased is assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, notional income comes to Rs.11,000/- per month.

¶60

The Tribunal has deducted 50% of the income of the deceased who was a bachelor on the ground that the 2nd claimant who was the father of the deceased cannot be dependent. Claimant No.1 is the mother, claimant No.2 is the father and claimants No.3 and 4 are the unmarried sisters of the deceased. The claimant No.1 - PW1 has stated on oath that all the

¶61

¶62

claimants were depending on the income of the deceased for meeting their day to day requirements.

¶63

Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination so as to disbelieve the said claim. The Apex Court in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., -VSVISHWANATH (SINCE DEAD, BY Lrs.) AND OTHERS

¶64

reported in 2014 ACJ 2316 has held that even though the deceased was a bachelor, but having regard to the dependency, 1/3rd deducted towards personal expenses is valid. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. (supra), 1/3rd of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards personal expenses for the purpose of awarding compensation towards loss of dependency since the number of dependents is four.

¶65

Taking into account the age of the deceased

¶66

which was 24 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘18’ has to be adopted and 40% of the assessed income is to be added to the income of the

¶67

¶68

deceased towards 'future prospectus'. Hence, the claimants are held entitled to (Rs.11,000/- x 1/3rd + 40% x 12 x 18) i.e., Rs.22,17,600/- on account of `loss of dependency'.

¶69

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, which comes to Rs.1,60,000/-. The compensation amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses is maintained. Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.24,07,600/- which carries the interest at the rate of 6 p.a. from the date of petition till the realisation. To

¶70

¶71

the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶72

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

bkm