Partly allowed

K Parameshwarappa v. M/S Katariya Transport Services

Karnataka HC13 Apr 2022MFA/10435/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Miscellaneous First Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in a motor accident claim. The High Court enhanced the compensation by adjusting notional income, applying the correct multiplier for dependency, and increasing awards for loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award are modified; total compensation enhanced to Rs.13,01,000/- comprising enhancement of loss of dependency, consortium, funeral, and estate heads, with interest at 6% p.a.

K Parameshwarappa Vs M/S Katariya Transport Services — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10435/2011(MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K.PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O KADA SIDDAPPA AGED 61 YEARS.

¶8

JAYALAKSHMI

¶9

W/O LATE NIRANJANAMURTHY AGED 26 YEARS.

¶10

NAYANA

¶11

D/O LATE NIRANJANAMURTHY AGED 6 YEARS.

¶12

NANDANA D/O LATE NIRANJANAMURTHY AGED 4 YEARS.

¶13

NAVEENA S/O LATE NIRANJANAMURTHY AGED 2 YEARS 10 MONTHS.

¶14

APPELLANT Nos.3 TO 5 ARE MINORS REP. BY ITS NATURAL MOTHER 2^ND APPELLANT ALL ARE RESIDING AT BHARAMPURA VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶15

… APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI.B.L. KUMAR, ADVOCATE )

¶17

¶18

AND:

¶19

M/S KATARIYA TRANSPORT SERVICES MEHRUNEKRUDA VILLAGE KEKRI TALUK, AMJIR DISTRICT RAJASTHAN STATE.

¶20

THE MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 2^ND FLOOR MAYURA COMPLEX, DOUBLE ROAD OPP:KSRTC BUS STAND, BELLARY.

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.K.S. LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADV. FOR SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADV. FOR R2 (VC) NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 08.09.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.37/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT AT HIRIYUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 08.09.2011, passed in MVC No.37/2010, on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, at Hiriyur, seeking enhancement.

¶27

¶28

Brief facts:

¶29

It is the case of the appellants-claimants that appellant No.1 is the father of the deceased, appellant No.2 is the wife of the deceased Nirananamurthy and appellant Nos.3 to 5 are the children of deceased Niranjanamurthy. It is the case of the appellants-claimants that on 16.01.2000 at about 10.45 p.m., deceased Niranjanamurthy was proceeding near Muddilingappa’s land on Kelahai-Aimangala Village road, at that time the driver of the Lorry bearing registration No.HR-55/F-7808 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed and dashed to the deceased Niranjanamurthy and caused accident. Niranjanamurthy sustained grievous injuries in the accident and later succumbed to the injuries.

¶30

It is the case of the appellants that the deceased earlier to the death was doing agriculture and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Appellant Nos.3 to 5 are minor children of the deceased and they are dependants on the deceased. Due to the death of deceased, they have

¶31

¶32

lost their bread winner of the family. Further, they have spent money towards funeral expenses and they are put to lot of inconvenience and hardship due to death of the deceased, which was an accident caused due to negligence of driver of the Lorry bearing registration No.HR-555/F7808. Hence, the appellants prayed for awarding compensation.

¶33

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellant under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the said lorry and respondent No.2 is the Insurer. In pursuance to the notice respondent No.2 company appeared through its counsel. Respondent No.1 inspite of service of notice remained absent. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,48,000/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal held respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation.

¶34

¶35

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 – insurance company and perused the materials on record.

¶36

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded under various heads is on lesser side. Therefore, seeks for enhancement of the compensation.

¶37

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent – insurance company submits that the Tribunal is justified in passing the impugned judgment and award and there is no ground for enhancement. That the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal is sufficient and adequate.

¶38

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

¶39

under various heads are as follows:

¶40

Towards Loss of dependency	: Rs.	4,08,000/-
Towards funeral expenses	: Rs.	10,000/-
Towards loss of consortium	: Rs.	10,000/-
Towards loss of estate	: Rs.	10,000/-
Towards loss of love and affection	: Rs.	10,000/-
TOTAL	: Rs.	4,48,000/-

¶41

¶42

Heard the learned counsels and perused the

¶43

material on record.

¶44

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager one as the correct parameters have not been taken while determining compensation. Therefore, prays for enhancement of the compensation. Further, submitted that the defendants are five in numbers i.e., father, wife and three children. Therefore, 1/4^th amount ought to have been deducted, but the Tribunal deducted 1/3^rd amount towards personal income. Therefore, prays to deduct 1/4^th of the income towards personal expenses. Further, submitted that ‘loss of consortium’ amount award is lesser side. Therefore, prays for enhancement of the compensation.

¶45

On the otherhand, Sri.K.S.Lakshmi Narasappa,

¶46

Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.2 vehemently submitted that the amount of compensation awarded is correct, which needs no interference. Further, submitted

¶47

¶48

the Tribunal has correctly determined the compensation and therefore there is no need to make any enhancement in the quantum and therefore prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶49

From the records, it is borne out that the deceased was doing agricultural work and was aged about 30 years as on the date of accident. The claimants are father, wife and three children of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken notional income as Rs.3,000/- per month. The notional income as per the Chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the year 2009 is taken at Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal considering the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month is not correct, and the same is taken at Rs.5,000/- per month.

¶50

Further, there are five dependants of the deceased. Therefore, 1/4^th of monthly income ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses of the

¶51

¶52

deceased. But the Tribunal has committed error by deducting only 1/3^rd towards personal expenses.

¶53

Further, as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the dependant are entitled for an additional compensation towards ‘loss of future prospects in life’. Therefore, 40% of his monthly income is added towards ‘Loss Of Future Prospects In Life’, i.e., Rs.2,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 40%). Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is taken at Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.2,000).

¶54

The appropriate multiplier applicable as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma & Others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn And Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , is ‘17’, since the appellant was aged 30 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the ‘loss of dependency including future prospects in life’ is recalculated and quantified as follows:

¶55

¶56

Rs.7,000 [(5,000 + 2000 (40%)) – ¾] x 17 x 12 = Rs.10,71,000/-

¶57

Therefore, a compensation of Rs.10,71,000 /- is awarded ‘loss of dependency’ including ‘loss of prospects in life’.

¶58

Further, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards ‘ Funeral And Transportation Expenses ’, which is insufficient, considering the year of the accident and therefore a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded.

¶59

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards ‘ Loss Of Estate’, since the same is on a lower side, the same is enhanced and a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded.

¶60

Further, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards ‘Towards Filial Love / Loss of Consortium’ the same is not sufficient. Since the appellants - claimants are the father, wife and three minor children of the deceased, therefore, as per the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay

¶61

¶62

Sethi ’s case, referred to supra, appellants – claimants who are parents of the deceased are awarded Rs.40,000/each, under the head ‘Towards Filial Love / Loss of Consortium’. Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled for a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 5) towards ‘Loss of Consortium’.

¶63

Therefore, the appellants are entitled to the

¶64

enhanced compensation as follows:

¶65

1	Loss of dependency ( Rs.7,000–¾ x 17 x 12)	:	Rs.	10,71,000/-
2	Loss of Consortium	:	Rs.	2,00,000/-
3	Funeral Expenses	:	Rs.	15,000/-
4	Loss of Estate	:	Rs.	15,000/-
	Total	:	Rs.	13,01,000/-

¶66

The appellants-claimants are entitled for a

¶67

total enhanced compensation of Rs.13,01,000/- as against Rs.4,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional Compensation of Rs.8,53,000/- (Rs.13,01,000 - Rs.4,48,000), along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶68

¶69

22. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶72

ii. The judgment and award dated 08.09.2011, passed in MVC No.37/2010, on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, at Hiriyur, is modified to the above extent.

¶73

iii. The appellants are entitled for an additional Compensation of Rs.8,53,000/- (Rs.13,01,000 - Rs.4,48,000), along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum , from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶74

iv. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶75

v. Draw award accordingly.

¶76

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

K Parameshwarappa v. M/S Katariya Transport Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Parameshwarappa v. M/S Katariya Transport Services

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

Shivappa S/O Late Hanumappa Vs H M Shiva Prasad

Branch Manager Vs Hemachandra Gowda S/O Late Narayana Gowda

Sri Praneyata Sharma Vs the Manager

Shri Vimal K S S/O Sri Sugantha Kumar L R Vs the Bracnh Manager

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Renukamma

The Branch Manager Vs N Puttaraju