Partly allowed

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

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2022MFA/1698/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal sought enhancement of motor accident compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, adding future prospects and spousal consortium heads, raising the total to Rs. 16,89,800.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation to Rs. 16,89,800 including future prospects and spousal consortium; direction to Insurance Company to deposit amount with interest.

Smt Meenakshi Vs the Future General India Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

1 - MFA No. 1698 of 2019

¶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 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1698 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT MEENAKSHI W/O LATE SURESH

¶8

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶9

THIMMAPPA POOJARY

¶10

S/O LATE MANJANNA POOJARY

¶11

SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS L.R. S

¶12

2(a) MR. CHANDRAHASA S/O LATE THIMMAPPA POOJARY AGED 49 YEARS.

¶13

2(b) MR. LAKSHMANA

¶14

S/O LATE THIMMAPPA POOJARY AGED 47 YEARS.

¶15

2(c) SMT. PAVITHRA Digitally signed D/O LATE THIMMAPPA POOJARY by C MALATHI AGED 38 YEARS Location: High Court of Karnataka 2(d) SMT. SUJATHA

¶16

2(d) SMT. SUJATHA D/O LT THIMMALPPA POOJARY AGED 35 YEARS

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 1698 of 2019

¶19

ALL ARE R/AT MUGULYA HOUSE SAJILPANDADU VILLAGE 574231 BANTWAL TALUK., D.K.

¶20

…APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B R., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD 2ND FLOOR, EMPIRE MALL M.G. ROAD, MANGALURU 575001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶24

MR. NEMIRAJA SHETTY S/O SUNDARA SHETTY AGED 44 YEARS R/O KAMPADKODI HOUSE SAJIPANADU VILALGE BANTWAL TQ. 574231.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.P.S. JAGADISH., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 05.12.2022)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31/07/2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.921/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANGALURU, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

MFA No. 1698 of 2019

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

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 dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru D.K., in MVC No.921/2014.

¶33

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶34

briefly stated are that on 14.12.2013, the deceased Suresh along with his brother Laxman were proceeding towards Kempadaklodi of Bantwal Taluk by walking on the extreme side of the road at about 08.15 a.m. the driver of the pick up bearing Registration No.KA-19-AA-1959 drove the same in a high speed with rash and negligent manner dashed to the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶35

¶36

MFA No. 1698 of 2019

¶37

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

¶38

On service of summons, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. 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. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶39

The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was placed ex-parte.

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

MFA No. 1698 of 2019

¶43

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of respondents, four witnesses were examined as RW-1 to RW-4 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R7. 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.12,82,0000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶44

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

¶45

Firstly, 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

¶46

¶47

MFA No. 1698 of 2019

¶48

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. But the Tribunal has failed to grant compensation towards ‘future prospects’. The same may be considered.

¶49

Secondly, 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

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

¶51

¶52

MFA No. 1698 of 2019

¶53

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

¶54

Insurance Company has raised the following countercontentions:

¶55

Firstly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation towards ‘future prospects’. The claimants have not produced any documents to show that he was earning Rs.300/- per day. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal Rs.9,000/- per month is on higher side.

¶56

Secondly, 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.

¶57

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

¶58

¶59

MFA No. 1698 of 2019

¶60

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

¶61

The Tribunal after considering the evidence of the parties, age and avocation of the deceased, has assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶62

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 there are three dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.8,400/-. The deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘16’. Thus, the

¶63

¶64

MFA No. 1698 of 2019

¶65

claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.16,12,800/(Rs.8,4001216) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶66

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’.

¶67

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

¶68

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

¶69

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	16,12,800
Funeral expenses	16,500
Loss of estate	16,500

¶70

10 -

¶71

MFA No. 1698 of 2019

¶72

Loss of spousal 44,000
consortium
Total 16,89,800

¶73

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part .

¶74

The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶75

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.16,89,800/- as against Rs.12,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶76

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit enhanced compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶77

The Tribunal is directed to release entire enhanced compensation amount along with interest in favour of claimant No.1, who is the wife of the deceased after due verification.

¶78