Partly allowed

Smt B T Boramma v. Mohamed Yasin

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2022MFA/1153/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed part of the first appeal against a Claims Tribunal award in a fatal motor accident case. Enhanced total compensation to Rs. 35,41,600/- by adjusting notional income, applying a multiplier of 18, and awarding consortium amounts to wife and children based on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Directed Insurance Company to deposit total compensation of Rs. 35,41,600/- along with interest at 6% p.a. within six weeks.

Smt B T Boramma Vs Mohamed Yasin — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

1 - MFA No. 1153 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1153 OF 2022(MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT B T BORAMMA W/O LATE UMESH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶9

HALARJUN U S/O LATE UMESH AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS

¶10

ANUSHA D/O LATE UMESH AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS APPELLANT Nos.2 & 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E. APPELLANT NO.1

¶11

SMT BORAMMA W/O PALAJJAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by 5. PALAJJAIAH DHANALAKSHMI S/O GADAIAH MURTHY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS Location: High Court of ALL ARE R/O CHIRATAGUNDU VILLAGE Karnataka KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT NOW R/AT 5TH CROSS PRASHANTH NAGARA JOGIMATTI ROAD

¶13

¶14

MFA No. 1153 of 2022

¶15

CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. PRAKASHA H C., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

MOHAMED YASIN S/O IYADAR SAB AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O DOOR NO.427 WARD NO.26, IDGA ROAD JAGRUTHI NAGARA BELLARY-583104.

¶20

THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE OPP TO KSRTC BUS STAND B D ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 16.12.2022)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 11.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 14/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-V, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

MFA No. 1153 of 2022

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11.10.2021 passed by the MACT, Chitradurga in MVC 14/2021.

¶29

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶30

briefly stated are that on 4.12.2020, when the deceased Umesh was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KA35-EC-7863 from Hangal Village towards his native near Vishranthi Dhaba, at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-34-B-8824 which was being driven in a

¶31

rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

MFA No. 1153 of 2022

¶35

4. On service of summons, the respondents

¶36

appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶37

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, 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.P7. On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1. 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.33,35,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount

¶38

¶39

MFA No. 1153 of 2022

¶40

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

¶41

The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶42

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by doing Mason work. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.14,000/-.

¶43

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

¶44

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 was below the age of 40 years. The same has been considered.

¶45

¶46

MFA No. 1153 of 2022

¶47

Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble

¶48

Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled for Rs.16,500/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.16,500/- towards ‘funeral expenses’.

¶49

Fourthly, 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.44,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶50

Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

¶51

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

¶52

Insurance Company has raised the following countercontentions:

¶53

¶54

MFA No. 1153 of 2022

¶55

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the

¶56

deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, the same is not established by the claimants by producing documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

¶57

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

¶58

Thirdly, 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.

¶59

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶60

It is not in dispute that Umesh died in the road traffic accident occurred on 4.12.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶61

¶62

MFA No. 1153 of 2022

¶63

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. But they have not produced 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 2020, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.14,500/- p.m.

¶64

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.20,300/-. Since there are 5 dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 3/4^th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘18’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.32,88,600/-

¶65

¶66

MFA No. 1153 of 2022

¶67

(Rs.20,3001218*3/4) on account of ‘loss of

¶68

dependency’.

¶69

In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.16,500/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.16,500/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’. Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

¶70

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.2 and 3, children of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’ and claimant Nos.4 and 5, parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’ .

¶71

10 -

¶72

MFA No. 1153 of 2022

¶73

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

¶74

compensation:

¶75

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	32,88,600
Funeral expenses	16,500
Loss of estate	16,500
Loss of spousal consortium	44,000
Loss of Parental consortium	88,000
Loss of Filial consortium	88,000
Total	35,41,600

¶76

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

¶77

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

¶78

Rs.35,41,600/- as against Rs.33,35,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶79

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with interest @ 6%

¶80

11 -

¶81

MFA No. 1153 of 2022

¶82

p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date

¶83

of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of

¶84

receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶85

Sd/JUDGE

¶86

¶87

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 58

Smt B T Boramma v. Mohamed Yasin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt B T Boramma v. Mohamed Yasin

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

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Govindaraju H C

Nalinakshi Vs Chetan

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Meenakshi

Smt Sharadamma Vs Sri G Anand

Smt Radha Vs Sri G Anand

Smt Meenakshi Vs the Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.