Partly allowed

Smt. Nalini. K v. Sri. Prakash. S

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2021MFA/9727/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the quantum of compensation awarded in a motor accident claim. The High Court Re-determined the deceased's monthly income using the Standard Chart, enhanced compensation from Rs.16.82 lakhs to Rs.24.47 lakhs including loss of dependency and consortium, and allowed the appeal in part.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.16,82,800 to Rs.24,47,600; interest fixed at 6% per annum on enhanced compensation.

Smt. Nalini. K Vs Sri. Prakash. S — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

M.F.A.No.9727/2018 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

1 . SMT.NALINI K., W/O LATE YOGESH KUMAR S.R., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶10

2 . KUM. MONISHA Y., D/O LATE YOGESH KUMAR S.R., AGED ABOUT 07 YEARS

¶11

3 . MASTER. DHARSHITH Y., S/O LATE YOGESH KUMAR S.R., AGED ABOUT 2½ YEARS

¶12

4 . SMT.H.K.SUBBALAKSHMAMMA W/O S.N.RAJU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶13

5 . SRI S.N.RAJU S/O LATE S.NANJAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶14

THE APPELLANT No.2 & 3 BEING MINOR, REP BY HER MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN-1^ST APPELLANT.

¶15

ALL ARE R/AT HUNSUR TOWN, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105. ...APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI T.PARAMESHWARAPPA, ADV.)

¶17

¶18

AND :

¶19

1 . SRI PRAKASH S., S/O SIDDAIAH B., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO.68/1, 15^TH MAIN, 16^TH CROSS, J.C.NAGARA, KURUBARAHALLI, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 086.

¶20

2 . THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., UNNATHI ARCADE, 1^ST FLOOR, NO.5/111 & 6/112, I BLOCK, Dr. RAJKUMAR ROAD, (I MAIN), RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010. …RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI PRITHVI RAJ B.N., ADV. FOR R-1; SRI H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR R-2.)

¶22

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.5771/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XX ACMM AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-24), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

This appeal is directed against the judgment and

¶26

award dated 19.07.2018 passed in MVC No.5771/2017 on the file of the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge

¶27

¶28

and XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate &

¶29

M.A.C.T., Bengaluru (SCCH-24) [Tribunal for short].

¶30

The claimants instituted the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 alleging actionable negligence on the driver of the Tempo Traveler bearing registration No.KA-03-D-0986 [offending vehicle] contending that on 25.09.2017 at about 1.30 a.m., while the deceased was driving his Autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-02-AE-1348 on service road of ring road from Laggere Bridge towards Sumanahally, met with the road traffic accident. Due to the said impact, deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

¶31

It was contended that the deceased was aged

¶32

about 30 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., as an auto driver and contributing the same for maintenance of the family. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the

¶33

¶34

claimants have suffered mental agony, loss of

¶35

dependency etc. On these set of grounds, the claimants sought for compensation.

¶36

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

¶37

The respondent No.1 admitting the

¶38

ownership of the offending vehicle submitted that the said vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2. The policy was in force as on the date of the accident. The vehicle had valid permit and FC, the driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. It was contended that the negligence of the driver of the auto has caused the accident.

¶39

The insurer admitting the issuance of insurance policy, denied the rash and negligent driving

¶40

- 5 -

¶41

of the Tempo Traveler. It was alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. For these reasons, the insurer sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶42

On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated the issues and answered as per the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment and award, allowing the claim petition in part awarding compensation of Rs.16,82,800/- with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of the petition till its realization.

¶43

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶44

Learned counsel for the

¶45

appellants/claimants would contend that the Tribunal

¶46

¶47

has grossly erred in determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-. Accordingly, they sought for

¶48

re-determination of the income as well as the

¶49

enhancement of compensation under the different heads.

¶50

Learned counsel for the insurer supporting the impugned judgment and award submitted that the Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has awarded just and proper compensation and the same does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶51

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶52

It is settled that in the absence of proof of

¶53

income, this Court is consistently referring to the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority to determine the monthly income of the

¶54

- 7 -

¶55

victim. Referring to the same, the monthly income of the deceased could be determined safely at Rs.11,000/-. Adding 40% towards the future prospects, the total income would be Rs.15,400/- p.m., since the deceased was aged about 34 years, applying the multiplier of 16, deducting 1/4^th towards personal and living expenses, the loss of dependency would workout to Rs.22,17,600/- [15400 x 12 x 16 x ¾].

¶56

In terms of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others ((2017)16 SCC 680) and New India Assurance Company Limited V/s. Somwati and Others 2020 [SCC ONLINE SC 720] , the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- under the conventional heads viz., Rs.80,000/- towards filial consortium [Rs.40,000/each to the parent]; Rs.40,000/- towards the spousal consortium; parental consortium of Rs.80,000/- [Rs.40,000/- to each child];

¶57

¶58

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/-

¶59

towards loss of estate.

¶60

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed

¶61

as under:

¶62

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount [in Rs.]
1.	Loss ofdependency	22,17,600/-
2.	Loss of Filial Consortium [Rs.40,000/-eachto the parent]	80,000/-
3.	Loss of Parental Consortium [Rs.40,000/-eachto the parent]	80,000/-
4.	Loss ofSpousalConsortium	40,000/-
5.	Loss of Estate	15,000/-
6.	Funeralexpenses	15,000/-
	Total	24,47,600/-

¶63

Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.24,47,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶64

Hence, the following:

¶65

- 9 -

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶68

ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.24,47,600/- as against Rs.16,82,800/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.

¶69

iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact. iv) The insurance company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶70