Partly allowed

Sri. Hanamappa S/O. Manappa Gudagaji v. Ramchandra S/O. Kuppa Gouda

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2022MFA/101591/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this first appeal filed to enhance compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident case. The court increased the total compensation from Rs. 15.46 lakh to Rs. 18.86 lakh by adjusting the notional income and including loss of future prospects, directing the insurer to deposit the amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 18,86,600 with 6% interest; insurer directed to deposit within one month.

Sri. Hanamappa S/O. Manappa Gudagaji Vs Ramchandra… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 101591 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101591 OF 2022(MV-D) BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. HANAMAPPA S/O MANAPPA GUDAGAJI AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. C/O. RAMESH S PAWAR, SANKETH BUILDING, UDYANAGAR, BENGERI, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI TQ: HUBBALLIL, DIST: DHARWAD-580023

¶8

SMT.NILAVVA W/O HANAMAPPA GUDAGAJI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. RAMESH S PAWAR, SANKETH BUILDING, UDYANAGAR, BENGERI, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI TQ: HUBBALLIL, DIST: DHARWAD-580023

¶9

SMT. MANJAVVA @ MANJULA, D/O HANAMAPPA GUDAGAJI AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. C/O. RAMESH S PAWAR, SANKETH BUILDING, UDYANAGAR, BENGERI, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI TQ: HUBBALLIL, DIST: DHARWAD-580023.

¶10

SRI. SHANKAR S/O HANAMAPPA GUDAGAJI AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. C/O. RAMESH S PAWAR,

¶11

¶12

MFA No. 101591 of 2022

¶13

SANKETH BUILDING, UDYANAGAR, BENGERI, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI TQ: HUBBALLIL, DIST: DHARWAD-580023

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. PRAKASH R BADIGER, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

RAMCHANDRA S/O. KUPPA GOUDA AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. HUBBUL VILLAGE, POST: SUNKNAL TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA PIN: 581314

¶18

THE MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 1^ST FLOOR, DESAI BUILDING, DR. DINAKAR DESAI ROAD, ANKOLA-581314

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. A.G.JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 07.06.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.543/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HUBBALLI , PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hubballi (henceforth referred to as 'Tribunal') in MVC No.543/2018.

¶25

¶26

MFA No. 101591 of 2022

¶27

The claim petition discloses that the claimants were the legal representatives of deceased - Krishna, a 20 year old man, employed as a Mason. It further discloses that on 19.02.2018, the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-20/EN-1618. At about 4.00 a.m., a lorry bearing registration No.KA-30/A-1605 (henceforth referred to as 'offending vehicle') driven from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against motorcycle, causing fatal injuries to the rider of the motorcycle, who died at the spot. The claimants claimed that the deceased was earning a sum Rs.20,000/- per month and was supporting the family. They therefore, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of a sum Rs.25,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶28

The insurer of the offending vehicle contested the claim petition and claimed that it was the deceased who was negligent and not the driver of the offending vehicle. It also claimed that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid licence and therefore, it was not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶29

¶30

MFA No. 101591 of 2022

¶31

Based on these rival contentions, the claim petition was set down for trial. One of the claimants was examined as PW2 and they commonly marked Exs.P1 to P52. The insurer did not lead any evidence.

¶32

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. In so far as the claim for compensation is concerned, the Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 20 years. The Tribunal considered his notional income at a sum of Rs.9,500/- per month and awarded the following compensation:-

¶33

Sl. No.	Heads	Amount (In Rs.)
1.	Loss of dependency	14,36,400/-
2.	Loss ofparental consortium	80,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses and loss of estate	30,000/-
	TOTAL	15,46,400/-

¶34

Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation

¶35

awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal.

¶36

The learned counsel for the claimants submitted

¶37

that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding loss of

¶38

¶39

MFA No. 101591 of 2022

¶40

future prospects. He also contended that the Tribunal failed to award adequate compensation towards loss of parental consortium.

¶41

The learned counsel for the insurer of the offending vehicle, on the other hand, contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any enhancement.

¶42

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimants as well as the learned counsel for the insurer.

¶43

It is not in dispute that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal had considered the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.9,500/- per month and deducted 50% towards his personal expenses. However, the Tribunal failed to award adequate compensation towards the loss of future prospects having regard to the age of the deceased. The accident is of the year 2018. In that view of the matter, it is safe to adopt the notional income prescribed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Consequently,

¶44

¶45

MFA No. 101591 of 2022

¶46

the notional income of the deceased is considered at a sum of Rs.11,750/- per month. The loss of future prospects is assessed at 40% of the notional income. Hence, the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation, which is as

¶47

follows:

¶48

Sl. No.	Heads	Amount (In Rs.)
1.	Loss of dependency (11,750 + 40% x 12 x 18 x 50%)	17,76,600/-
2.	Loss ofparental consortium	80,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses and loss of estate	30,000/-
	TOTAL	18,86,600/-

¶49

In view of above, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from a sum of Rs.15,46,400/- to a sum of Rs.18,86,600/-, which is payable by the insurer of the offending vehicle along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.

¶50

The insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation and interest before the Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶51

¶52

MFA No. 101591 of 2022

¶53

Upon deposit, 50% of the enhanced compensation

¶54

and interest shall be deposited in the name of the claimant No.2 in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

PMR

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68

Sri. Hanamappa S/O. Manappa Gudagaji v. Ramchandra S/O. Kuppa Gouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Hanamappa S/O. Manappa Gudagaji v. Ramchandra S/O. Kuppa Gouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Gyandamalla S/O Sampathraj Kothari Vs Smt Lalita W/O Late Mallikarjuna Kundagol

Ramachandra Annayya Bhat Vs Subray Venkatraman Bhat

Sri Gajanana Yeshwant Bedke Vs Smt Shantabai @ Tarabai Mohan Badavannache

Sulbha Dilip Bhide Vs the Managing Director

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Rekha W/O. Shivaputra Kamble

Sangavva W/O Hanamant Sutagatti Vs Mohammadgouse