Partly allowed

Renukaiah v. R Jayakumar

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2022MFA/2107/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly, enhancing the compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident case. The Court recalculated loss of dependency, consortium, and total compensation, directing the insurer to pay the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.2,74,200 awarded, bringing total to Rs.18,13,200 payable by the insurer with 6% p.a. interest.

Renukaiah Vs R Jayakumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶8

MFA No.2107/2021(MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RENUKAIAH S/O LATE ADAVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶11

RENUKAMMA W/O RENUKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶12

THANUJA D/O RENUKAIAH, W/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶13

ALL RESIDING AT BANGARAGERE, MUDDENAHALLI POST, C. N. HALLI TALUK, NOW R/AT HEGGERE NEW EXTN., TUMAKURU - 572 101 …APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SHRI.K.SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

R. JAYAKUMAR S/O RAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O NO. 13/07, 2ND MAIN ROAD, ATTUR, SALEM, TAMIL NADU - 636 102.

¶17

THE NATIONAL INS., CO., LTD., 1ST FLOOR, NIRESH COMPLEX,

¶18

¶19

NO.910, KUDLUR MAIN ROAD, P.B NO. 07, ATTUR, SALEM, SERIVICE ADDRESS: THE NATIONAL INS., CO., LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, BESIDE KRISHNA TALKIES, M.G. ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 101. ...RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SHRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE OREDER DATED 17.01.2022)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1164/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Though the matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2021, by consent of learned advocates for the parties the same is taken up for final disposal since a short point is involved in the matter.

¶25

This appeal is filed by the claimants in

¶26

MVC.No.1164/2017 on the file of II Additional District Judge and MACT, Tumakuru, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide judgment and award dated November 6, 2019, passed by the Tribunal.

¶27

¶28

For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶29

Heard Shri K.Shantharaj, learned advocate for claimants-appellants and Shri Janardhan Reddy, learned advocate for the second respondent-insurer.

¶30

Claimants No.1 and 2 are parents and claimant No.3 is Sister of Shri B.R.Thrinesh, who died in the road traffic accident, on 16.04.2017, when a JCB bearing Registration No.KA-17-M-6800 coming from opposite direction dashed against the Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-07-L-5766, which deceased was riding. Shri B.R.Thrinesh succumbed to injuries on 17.04.2017 in the hospital. On adjudication of the claim petition, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.15,39,000/with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.

¶31

Shri. Shantharaj for the claimants urged the following contentions;

¶32

firstly, the Tribunal has erred in not considering the actual income of the deceased. He submitted

¶33

¶34

that deceased was working as Expert Chief Chef in 'NH-4 Smoking Barriel Cafe', Kolar, and earning Rs.35,000/- per month. Tribunal has erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.9,500/- p.m., and accordingly sought for enhancement; and

¶35

• Secondly, Tribunal has erred in directing 50% of the earnings of the deceased towards his personal income.

¶36

In reply to the first contention, Shri Janardhan

¶37

Reddy for the insurer, adverting to paragraph 18(1) of the judgment of the Tribunal submitted that except self serving statement of PW.1, who is the father of the deceased, no evidence is placed before the Tribunal to substantiate their claim that Shri B.R.Thrinesh was earning Rs.35,000/- per month. However, in his usual fairness, he submitted that this Court may consider the income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- per month as the accident has occurred in the year 2017. In the absence of any proof of income, this Court has

¶38

¶39

consistently considered the notional income of an able bodied person in the year 2017 as Rs.11,000/- p.m.

¶40

With regard to the second contention,

¶41

Shri Janardhan Reddy submitted that the claim petition was presented by the father, who is aged about 50 years and deceased was aged 25 years at the time of his death and he was bachelor. Therefore, Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% towards the personal expenditure of the deceased.

¶42

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.

¶43

Deceased was aged 25 years, hence the applicable multiplier is 18 and future prospects is to be added at 40%.

¶44

Since, deceased was a bachelor 50% is deductible from the earnings of the deceased while calculating loss of dependency. Claimants are parents and Sister of the deceased and parents are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium.

¶45

¶46

Thus, compensation towards loss of dependency is worked out as follows;

¶47

The monthly notional income works out to Rs.15,400/(Rs.11,000+4,400). [by adding 40% towards future prospects (Rs.11,00040%=Rs.4,400)]. After deducting 50% towards personal expenses, monthly income works out to Rs.7,700/(Rs.15,40050%) and annual notional income works out to Rs.92,400/- (Rs.7,70012). By applying 18 as multiplier, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.16,63,200/- (Rs.92,40018).

¶48

13. The compensation is re-computed as follows;

¶49

Sl. No	Description	Amount
a.	Loss of dependency	Rs.16,63,200
b.	ADD : Conventional Heads	Rs.30,000
c.	ADD : Filial Consortium (Rs.40,000*3)	Rs.1,20,000
d.	Total (a+b+c)	Rs.18,13,200
e.	LESS :Compensation awarded bythe Tribunal	Rs.15,39,000
Enh	anced compensation (d-e)	Rs.2,74,200

¶50

¶51

14. Hence, the following;

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) Appeal is allowed in part by holding that claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.18,13,200/- as against Rs.15,39,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, payable with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of filing claim petition till the date of deposit. The enhanced compensation is Rs.2,74,200 /-; and

¶54

(ii) Respondent No.2-Insurer shall pay the entire compensation amount of Rs.18,13,200/- with interest at 6% p.a., excluding the amount paid, if any, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order denying interest for the period of 426 days. Disbursement shall be made as directed by the Tribunal.

No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

DS/AV

Renukaiah v. R Jayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renukaiah v. R Jayakumar

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

State Bank of Mysore Vs Smt Suma Maheshchandra

Smt Amba Alva Vs Basf India Limited

The Union of India Vs D R Shivakumar

Sri.Pradeep K.N. Vs Sri.H.K.Vijayakumar

Smt. Renuka Vs Sri H N Ramesh

Smt Shwetha Vs Syed Farooq