Partly allowed

Smt. Gowramma v. Sri Mahesh

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2021MFA.CROB/105/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed part of appeals against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Court enhanced compensation to ₹19,03,600 on loss of dependency and mental agony heads, reduced interest deduction for father, and modified interest rate to 6% p.a., setting aside award of ₹17,85,000.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to ₹19,03,600 with interest at 6% p.a. from date of claim; liability and apportionment order of Tribunal retained.

Smt. Gowramma Vs Sri Mahesh — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^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

MFA NO.3089 OF 2018 (MV) C/W MFA CROB NO.105 OF 2019

¶8

IN MFA NO.3089 OF 2018

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HASSAN BRANCH MANJUNATHAESHWARA COMPLEX BUS STAND ROAD, HASSAN THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE # 144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 REP. BY ITS ADM. OFFICER SMT. C. K. PARIMALA ... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI.SEETHARAMA RAO B. C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS W/O LATE D. G. NAVEEN

¶14

KUM. AMRUTHA AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, THE FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN

¶15

¶16

SRI. GANGADHARE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O DODDASIDDEGOWDA

¶17

SMT. SUNDARAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O SRI. GANGADHARE GOWDA

¶18

ALL ARE R/AT DEVAGONDAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKYA HOBLI CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK-575 125

¶19

SRI. MAHESH MAJOR IN AGE S/O BASAVARAJU R/O BHOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK ... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. K. R. LINGARAJU, ADV. FOR R1, R3 AND R4; R2 IS MINOR REP. BY R1; R5 SERVED)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.396/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.17,85,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.

¶22

IN MFA CROB NO.105 OF 2019

¶23

BETWEEN :

¶24

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE D. G. NAVEEN HOUSEWIFE

¶25

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶26

BABY AMRUTHA AGED ABOUT 4½ YEARS

¶27

¶28

SINCE MINOR, REP. BY HER MOHTER NATURAL GUARDIAN CROSS OBJECTOR NO.1

¶29

SRI. GANGADHAREGOWDA S/O DODDASIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶30

SMT. SUNDARAMMA W/O GANGADHAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT DEVAGONDAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, LAKYA HOBLI CHIKKAMAGLUR TALUK

¶31

... CROSS OBJECTORS

¶32

(BY SRI.K. R. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND :

¶34

SRI. MAHESH S/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT BHOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT

¶35

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HASSAN BRANCH MANJUNATHESHWARA COMPLEX BUS STAND ROAD, HASSAN

¶36

... RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. B. C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶38

THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.3089 OF 2018 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC READ WITH SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.396/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MEMBER, MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM

¶39

¶40

PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶41

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

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 03.11.2017 passed in MVC No.396/2016 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Member, MACT, Chikkamagaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’), respondent no.2-Insurance Company has preferred MFA No.3089/2018 and the petitioners therein have preferred MFA.CROB.105/2019.

¶44

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶45

The brief facts of the case are that on 08/09.02.2015, at about 12.00 in the midnight, the deceased D.G.Naveen was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA 18 U 5762 as a pillion rider along with one Kavyananda at Devagondanahalli village. They stopped the vehicle by the side of the road and were talking with one Yogeesha. At that time, a Car bearing No.KA 18 M 9727 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent

¶46

¶47

no.1 came and dashed against the motorcycle because of which the deceased Naveen sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. The petitioners are the wife, daughter, father and mother of the deceased Naveen. They preferred MVC No.396/2016 before the Tribunal.

¶48

Respondent no.1 is the driver and owner of the offending car. Respondent no.2 is the Insurance Company. After service of notice, both the respondents have appeared before the Tribunal, filed the written statements and denied the liability. To prove the case, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners and they got marked Exs.P1 to P16. The respondents examined one witness and got marked Exs.R1 to R5.

¶49

Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.17,85,000/- to the petitioners along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the same, respondent no.2-Insurance Company has preferred MFA No.3089/2018 and the petitioners have preferred MFA.CROB.105/2019.

¶50

¶51

Respondent no.2-Insurance Company has appealed on the grounds that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/4^th of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased by ignoring the fact that the father of the deceased being able bodied agriculturist is not a dependent and it ought to have taken 2/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards loss of dependency. It is also contended that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads are also on the higher side and also the interest of 9% p.a. is on the higher side.

¶52

Per contra, the petitioners have contended that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased on the lower side and have sought for enhancement of the compensation.

¶53

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶54

The copy of the charge sheet and mahazar shows that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the offending Car. Insofar as the contention of the Insurance Company

¶55

¶56

that the father of the deceased who is petitioner No.3 is not a dependent, we are in agreement with the same and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses as against 1/4^th . In respect of conventional heads, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal in fact has erred in not awarding the amounts as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India

¶57

Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Somwati [(2020)9 SCC 644] .

¶58

The accident occurred in the year 2015. The deceased was aged 27 years at the time of the accident. He was an agriculturist. No proof of income is provided by the petitioners. Thus, the Tribunal has taken his income notionally at Rs.8,000/- per month. It is noticed that 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 is fixed at Rs.9,000/- per month for the accident happened in the year 2015. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16

¶59

SCC 680 , 40% has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects. The age of the

¶60

¶61

deceased being 27 years at the time of the accident as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. D.T.C [2009(6) SCC 121] , a multiplier of 17 has to be adopted. Further, as there are three dependents of the deceased, 1/3^rd of the income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the petitioners would be entitled to a sum of Rs.17,13,600/- on the count of loss of dependency [Rs.9,000/- + 40% = Rs.12,600/- X 12 X 17 X 2/3^rd ].

¶62

Under the conventional heads, the petitioners being wife, daughter, father and mother, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Somwati [(2020)9 SCC 644] . Thus, together they are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, they are 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.19,03,600/- as against Rs.17,85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶63

¶64

12. Awarding of interest being discretionary, the Tribunal

¶65

has awarded 9% interest per annum on the compensation. We deem it not appropriate to interfere in the discretion exercised by the Tribunal. However, presently there is a fall in the interest rates awarded by banks and we deem it appropriate to award interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation.

¶66

13. Hence, the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i) MFA No.3089 of 2018 and MFA CROB.105 of 2019 are allowed in part.

¶69

ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.19,03,600/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Three Thousand and Six Hundred only) as against Rs.17,85,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶70

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

¶71

¶72

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.

¶73

v) The modified compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

¶74

vi) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

¶77

hkh.

Smt. Gowramma v. Sri Mahesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gowramma v. Sri Mahesh

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

Sri. C. N. Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. N Lakshmidevi Vs Smt.Huchamma

Smt Ramakka Vs Smt. Thanamma Since Deceased by Legal Heir

Smt Shruthi Vs Instant Transport

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Shruthi

Sri. Shridhara Acharya Vs Mr Dinesh R K