Partly allowed

Mr.Savitram v. Mr.Ravishankar

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2022MFA/3111/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The High Court enhanced the compensation for the parents of a deceased claimant from approximately Rs.5.41 lakh to Rs.14.81 lakh, following Supreme Court precedents on future prospects and consortium.

What did the court decide?

Awards total compensation of Rs.14,81,800/- against the original award of Rs.541,286/- and directs the Insurance Company to deposit the amount with 6% interest.

Mr.Savitram Vs Mr.Ravishankar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.3111 OF 2019(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

1 . MR.SAVITRAM

¶9

@ SAVITRAM YADAV

¶10

S/O MOONE

¶11

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶12

2 . SMT RAMA DEVI

¶13

W/O MR SAVITRAM @ SAVITRAM YADAV, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶14

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.136 GURHAWA, RAMWAPUR SHIKARI CHAURA SHRAWASTI UTTAR PRADESH-271801.

¶15

...APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI.KETHAN KUMAR, ADV.)

¶17

AND

¶18

1 . MR.RAVISHANKAR S/O THARANATH B AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT LAXMI KIRAN COMPOUND JEPPU MARKET ROAD

¶19

¶20

JEPPU

¶21

MANGALURU TALUK, D.K-575002.

¶22

2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.10 FLAT NO.101-106, N-1, BMC HOUSE CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI-110001.

¶23

3 . MRS WILMA CUTINHO W/O VINCENT CUTINHO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT VILVIN, 3-E-9-703/10 VIVEKANANDHA 4TH CROSS,EDEN-1, BEJAI MANGALORE-575003.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.RAVISH BENNI, ADV. FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 & R3 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.6.18 PASSED IN MVC NO.274/16 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-IV, D.K.,MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

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

¶31

for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.6.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, D.K.Mangaluru in MVC 274/2016.

¶32

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶33

briefly stated are that on 7.11.2015, when the deceased Pramod @ Pramod Kumar Yadav along with Arif Khan was proceeding in A.B.Shetty-Hampanakatte Road by pushing a hand cart near Nehru Maidan, at that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-19-MB9434 which was being driven in a 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.

¶34

¶35

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section

¶36

166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of

¶37

the deceased along with interest.

¶38

On service of summons, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶39

The respondent No.3 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was placed ex-parte.

¶40

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶41

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 and two other witnesses were examined as PWs-2 and 3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P31. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was

¶42

¶43

examined nor any document was produced. 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.541,286/- 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, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as cook and juice seller. But the Tribunal is

¶46

¶47

not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.3,000/-.

¶48

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

¶49

Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL

¶50

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’.

¶51

¶52

Fourthly, 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.

¶53

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶54

the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:

¶55

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- 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.

¶56

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

¶57

Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the

¶58

¶59

Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶60

Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶61

and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶62

It is not in dispute that Pramod @ Pramod

¶63

Kumar Yadav died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶64

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- 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 2015, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.9,000/p.m.

¶65

¶66

To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added

¶67

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, it is appropriate to deduct 50% 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 15 to 20 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.13,60,800/- (Rs.12,6001218*50%) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶68

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’.

¶69

¶70

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL

¶71

INSURANCE’ (supra), claimants, who are parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’ .

¶72

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

¶73

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	13,60,800
Funeral expenses	16,500
Loss of estate	16,500
Loss of filial consortium	88,000
Total	14,81,800

¶74

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,81,800/- as against Rs.541,286/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶75

¶76

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

¶77

the 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.

¶78

In view of the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 211 days in filing the appeal.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

Mr.Savitram v. Mr.Ravishankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Savitram v. Mr.Ravishankar

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

H.Vanajakshi Vs M.B.Manjunatha

Suresh Dhanashetti Vs M/S Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd

Mr Vinod K Vs Mr Kumar C M

Srinivas v Vs Mr Mahesh T

Master Mohammed Thameem Vs Mr. Sachin S Suvarna

Smt Eramma Vs the Regional Manager