Partly allowed

Smt Padmavathi v. Sri Shaik Shajahan

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2022MFA/1059/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants appealed against the MVC Tribunal's award of Rs. 11.96 lakhs. The High Court found that while claimants failed to prove bank records, they were entitled to enhanced compensation. It recalculated notional income, added future prospects, and awarded Rs. 40,000 each for lost love and consortium, modifying the award to Rs. 13,95,200.

What did the court decide?

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.13,95,200/- instead of Rs.11,96,000/-; the insurance company is directed to deposit this amount within six weeks.

Smt Padmavathi Vs Sri Shaik Shajahan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MFA No.1059 OF 2022(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SMT PADMAVATHI, W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, NOW AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶9

2 . KUM. N. LALITHA, D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, NOW AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH ARE R/AT SHANTHINAGAR, CHINTAMANI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI.JAGADISH.G.KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVINDRA.P, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . SRI. SHAIK SHAJAHAN, S/O SHAIK MUNAF, MAJOR BY AGE, R/AT NO. 6-738, T.B. ROAD, KALIKIRI VILLAGE AND POST, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 517 001.

¶15

¶16

2 . THE IFFCO TOKIO GENERLA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SR. SHANTHI TOWERS, 5^TH FLOOR, NO.141, 3^RD MAIN, EAST TO NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 043. REP BY ITS MANAGER.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.D.VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.01.2017 IN MVC NO.1463/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-17), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’,

¶23

for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.01.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.1463/2016.

¶24

¶25

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶26

briefly stated are that on 21.12.2015, the deceased along with his friends were returning to Chintamani town from Bengaluru in TATA ACE Vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-01/BE-8864 on BengaluruHosakote road around 12.00 mid night near Karapanahalli gate, Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, at that time, the driver of the Bolero Vehicle bearing Registration No.AP-03/TC-7026 came from opposite direction in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and caused accident by head on collision. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶27

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

¶28

¶29

On service of summons, the respondent

¶30

Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle have appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶31

It was pleaded by the owner that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The driver of the offending vehicle possessed valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant.

¶32

It was pleaded by the insurer of the offending vehicle that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of TATA ACE. The liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of

¶33

¶34

compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant.

¶35

Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶36

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶37

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P13.

¶38

On behalf of respondents, neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document on their behalf. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.11,96,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along

¶39

¶40

with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶41

Sri Jagadish G Kumbar, learned counsel for

¶42

Sri Ravindra.P, for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶43

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as Tailor. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.7,000/-.

¶44

Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157] , in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ should be the warrant where the deceased

¶45

¶46

was below the age of 40 years. The same may be considered.

¶47

Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782], each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶48

Lastly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

¶49

Per contra, Sri D. Vijaykumar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:

¶50

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the same is not established by the claimants by producing

¶51

¶52

documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly

¶53

assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

¶54

Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’.

¶55

Lastly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶56

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶57

It is not in dispute that Harish died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶58

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But they have not produced

¶59

¶60

any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2015, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.9,000/p.m.

¶61

To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘PRANAY SETHI’ (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.12,600/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor at the time of the accident, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and therefore the monthly income comes to Rs.6,300/-. The deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘17’. Thus, the

¶62

¶63

claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.12,85,200/- (Rs.6,3001217) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶64

In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’.

¶65

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant No.1, mother of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’ and claimant No.2, sister of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection’ .

¶66

¶67

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the

¶68

following compensation:

¶69

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	12,85,200
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of love and affection	40,000
Loss of Filial consortium	40,000
Total	13,95,200

¶70

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶71

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.13,95,200/- . (The enhanced compensation will not carry any interest).

¶72

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization,

¶73

¶74

within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

HA/-

Smt Padmavathi v. Sri Shaik Shajahan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Padmavathi v. Sri Shaik Shajahan

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

Smt. G M Sunitha Vs Sri. Hiriyanna H P

Basavaraja Vs Ganji Lingareddy

Smt Shivalingamma Vs M/S Geekom Logistic Pvt. Ltd.

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt Vidya

Smt. Shilpha Vs Sri. N. Nagaraju

Smt Rangamma B Vs H G Chandramouli