Partly allowed

Baiyanna v. H.G.Chandramauli

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2022MFA/31/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against motor accident compensation award where appellants sought enhancement based on deceased's higher education. Court enhanced compensation by recalculating income and granting loss of filial love and affection to parents, dismissing siblings' claim for head love.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by an additional Rs. 6,20,400 with interest at 6% p.a. to be deposited by the insurance company within four weeks.

Baiyanna Vs H.G.Chandramauli — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.JOSHI

¶7

M.F.A.No.31/2017 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BAIYANNA

¶10

S/O OBAIAH

¶11

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE

¶12

R/O KATAPPANAHATTI CHALLAKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577522.

¶13

PALAMMA W/O BAIYANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O KATAPPANAHATTI CHALLAKERE TOWN

¶14

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522.

¶15

SURESH B S/O BAIYANNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O KATAPPANAHATTI CHALLAKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577522.

¶16

¶17

KUMARA B S/O BAIYANNA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O KATAPPANAHATTI CHALLAKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577522.

¶18

...APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI H. ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

H.G.CHANDRAMAULI S/O H.GURUBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS BUS OWNER R/AT CHURCH ROAD, KELAGOTE CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501.

¶22

THE BRANCH MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., 'SUNDARAM TOWERS' NO.45 AND 46, WHITES ROAD CHENNAI - 600 014.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 SERVED)

¶25

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.128/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHALLAKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY C.M.JOSHI J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 15.07.2016 passed in MVC No.128/2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Addl MACT, Challakere, whereby the claim of the petitioners came to be allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.6,73,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a., petitioners/appellants have filed this appeal, by urging various grounds.

¶30

The parties are referred to as per their

¶31

nomenclature before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶32

The brief facts of the case are as below:

¶33

Originally, this petition is filed by the injured petitioner-Somashekhar through his next friend, his father, for grant of compensation for the injuries sustained in road traffic accident stating that due to accidental injuries, he has lost memory, contending that on 13-8-2012 Somashekhar was traveling in the bus bearing Reg.No.KA.16.B.757 along with other passengers from

¶34

¶35

Chitradurga to Challakere and at about 2.30 p.m. they came near Madakari village, the driver of the said bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against road side tamarind tree and caused the accident. Due to the said accident, Somashekar sustained severe head injury. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chitradurga and then to SS Hospital, Davanagere, where he took treatment as inpatient from 13-8-2012 to 28-9-2012. It is specifically pleaded that due to head injury, Somashekar lost consciousness and though he was discharged he did not gain consciousness. Again, he was taken to Government hospital, Challakere wherein he took treatment as inpatient from 9-10-2012 to 22-92013 and spent Rs.2,00,000/- for treatment. Therefore, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation against the respondents.

¶36

During the pendency of the petition, father of Somashekar has deposed on his behalf as PW1 and when the case is posted for respondent's evidence, Somashekhar died and his legal representatives have come on record.

¶37

¶38

It is specifically pleaded by petitioners that due to injuries sustained in the accident Somashekar died on 5-92015 and they performed the funeral and other ceremonies by spending Rs.1,00,000/- and also incurred Rs.25,000/- towards transportation charges.

¶39

It is specifically pleaded by the petitioners-legal representatives of deceased Somashekhar that prior to the accident deceased was hale and healthy, he has passed BA and doing his MA in Economics. It is also contended that after completion of BA he used to conduct tuition classes for 8th to 10th standard students and earning Rs.25,000/per month and due to total loss of memory, he was unable to do any work as he was doing earlier. Therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, being the registered owner and insurer of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA.16.B.757.

¶40

On receipt of notice from the Tribunal, 1st respondent remained absent and he was placed exparte and 2nd respondent appeared through its counsel and

¶41

¶42

filed its written statement denying the case of the petitioners and admitted the issuance of policy in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of the bus covering the risk at the time, subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It is pleaded that driver of the bus was not holding valid and effective DL at the time of accident and he has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 3 of MV Rules 1989 and therefore, 1st respondent violated the Rules, by permitting the driver who was hot holding the DL at that time. It is further contended that in view of non compliance of mandatory provisions of Sec. 134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act, it is not liable to pay the compensation and also denied the age, occupation and income of the injured deceased and denied rest of the allegations made in the petition regarding, injuries, treatment. However, it is contended that its liability is subject to RC permit, FC, DL and terms and conditions of the policy and that there is no nexus between accident and injuries and there is a delay in filing the complaint before the concerned authorities and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶43

¶44

On the basis of the pleadings and contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed necessary issues and after considering the oral evidence of PW1-Baiyanna, father of the original petitioner Somashekhar and PW2 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to 214 on behalf of petitioners and oral evidence of RW1 and documentary evidence of Exs.R1 and R2 on behalf of respondent, assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, deducting 50% towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 13, taking the age of the mother of the deceased a sum of Rs.4,68,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of dependency. Further, the Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.1,24,825/- towards medical expenses, a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards nourishment and attendant charges, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses and in all, Rs.6,72,825/- and rounded off it to Rs.6,73,000/- together with 9% interest

¶45

¶46

p.a. and directed the insurance company to deposit the same.

¶47

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶48

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants Sri H.Ashok Kumar and learned counsel Sri Ravi S. Samprathi, appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the records. The fact that there was an accident and that the respondent Insurance Company had insured the said vehicle as on the date of the accident is not in dispute. There is nothing on record which suggest that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated. Therefore, the liability on the part of respondent No.2 needs no reconsideration by this Court.

¶49

The only contention is regarding the quantum of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal. The petitioners have contended that the deceased Somashekhar was a MA student and he had passed his BA

¶50

¶51

in distinction. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month needs to be reconsidered by this Court. The accident has happened on 13-8-2012. In our considered opinion, the income of the deceased has to be considered at Rs.7,000/- and by adding future prospects at 40% In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and others.¹ it would come to Rs.9,800/- per month. Since the deceased was bachelor, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses and therefore, the loss of dependency has to be calculated at Rs.4,900/- x 12 x 18=10,58,400/- by adopting a multiplier of 18 for the age of the deceased.

¶52

Petitioners No.1 and 2 are the parents and they are entitled for compensation under the head of filial love and affection. However, petitioners No. 3 and 4 being the siblings of the deceased, are not entitled for compensation under such head. Therefore, in view of the decision in the

¶53

1 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶54

¶55

case of Magma General Insurance Limited Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others² a sum of Rs.40,000/each has to be granted to Petitioners No.1 and 2. The petitioners are also entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶56

Thus, there shall be an enhancement of

¶57

Rs.6,20,400/- as below:

¶58

Loss of dependency	Rs.10,58,400/-
Medical expenses	Rs. 1,24,825/-
Nourishment/ attendant charges	Rs. 25,000/-
Loss of filial love and affection	Rs. 80,000/-
Loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
Transportation and funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
Total entitlement	Rs.13,18,225/-
Less: awarded by Tribunal	Rs. 6,73,000/-
Enhancement would be	Rs. 6,20,400/-

¶59

Thus, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, there shall be an increase of Rs.6,20,400/together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶60

2 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 1546

¶61

¶62

Hence, we pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶65

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 15.07.2016 passed in MVC No.128/2014 by the Tribunal is modified awarding additional compensation of Rs.6,20,400/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶66

(iii) The conditions of apportionment and deposit as ordered by the Tribunal remain unaltered.

¶67

(iv) Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

tsn*

Baiyanna v. H.G.Chandramauli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baiyanna v. H.G.Chandramauli

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 Gowramma Vs Smt Jyothi Rodrigues

State by Police Sub-Inspector Vs Babu Reddy

Rehana Banu Vs Shivakumar R

C. Nagasmitha Vs B. R. Narendra Kumar

Mr Nityananda R Poojary Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

The State of Karnataka Vs Murali