Allowed

Smt Gangamma v. Mr Suhail Khan

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2022MFA/373/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the Motor Vehicle Accident appeal partly, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal from Rs. 9,15,000 to Rs. 21,85,200 based on notional income, future prospects under Pranay Sethi, and consortium awards under Magma General Insurance.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation awarded to the claimants from Rs. 9,15,000 to Rs. 21,85,200, including loss of dependency, funeral expenses, estate, and consortium.

Smt Gangamma Vs Mr Suhail Khan — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.373 OF 2018 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O LATE RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

¶9

KUM. KHUSHITHA D/O LATE RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS.

¶10

SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NGM SMT. GANGAMMA.

¶11

APPELLANT NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT CHADALAPURA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALAPURA TALUK – 562 101.

¶12

SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O LATE RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶13

¶14

KUM. GANGAMBIKA D/O LATE RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, 5. KUM RADHIKA D/O LATE RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS. 6. MASTER RAKESH S/O LATE RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS. 7. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. APPELLANT NOS.4 TO 6 ARE MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR NGM SMT. SHASHIKALA APPELLANT NOS.3 TO 7 ARE R/AT GOWDAGANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 129.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. A.S. GIRISH, ADVOCATE)(PH)

¶17

AND:

¶18

MR. SUHAIL KHAN S/O MOHAMMED YOUNUS, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, 1ST CROSS, HANIFIYA MASJID ROAD,

¶19

¶20

KUSHALNAGAR, K.G.HALLI A.C.POST, BANGALORE-560 045.

¶21

OFFICE AT SK WORLD HOME APPLIANCES AND ELECTRICALS, NO.KG-41, HBR LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, VENKATESHAPURAM, BANGALORE-45.

¶22

BRANCH OFFICE AT S.K.WORLD, GOVINDA RAJ BUILIDNG, OPPOSITE TO MRF TIRE SHOW ROOM, DODDBALLLAPURA ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN-562 110 (OWNER OF CAR BEARING NO.KA-03-MG-7723)

¶23

…RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.7587/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 21ST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND 19TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

¶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 dated 25.07.2017, passed by the Court of XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.7587/2016.

¶29

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 08.09.2016, when the deceased was proceeding towards silk board, at that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-03-MK-7723, 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.

¶30

¶31

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section

¶32

166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of

¶33

the deceased along with interest.

¶34

On service of summons, the respondent

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.3 as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf of respondent, neither any witness was examined nor any documents was produced. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent

¶38

¶39

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.9,15,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the respondent to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶40

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

¶41

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as Coolie and Mason. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.6,000/-.

¶42

¶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 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’, Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’.

¶44

Thirdly, he contended that there are 7 dependants but the tribunal has deducted ‘loss of dependency’ at 1/4^th , which is not correct.

¶45

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.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶46

¶47

Lastly, the compensation awarded by the

¶48

Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of

¶49

compensation.

¶50

Respondent – Owner of the offending

¶51

vehicle is served but unrepresented.

¶52

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶53

claimants.

¶54

It is not in dispute that deceased Ravi

¶55

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

¶56

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as Coolie and Mason. But they have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of

¶57

¶58

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 2016, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.9,500/p.m.

¶59

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.13,300/-. Since there are more than 5 dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/5^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 35 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘15’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of

¶60

¶61

Rs.19,15,200/- (Rs.13,300124/5*15) on account of

¶62

‘loss of dependency’.

¶63

In addition, the claimants are entitled to

¶64

compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’. Claimant No.3, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

¶65

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

¶66

INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 are children of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’ and claimant No.7, mother of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’ .

¶67

¶68

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the

¶69

following compensation:

¶70

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	19,15,200
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of spousal consortium	40,000
Loss of Parental consortium	1,60,000
Loss of Filial consortium	40,000
Total	21,85,200

¶71

In the result, the appeal is allowed in

¶72

part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶73

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.21,85,200/- as against Rs.9,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶74

The respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date

¶75

¶76

of realization, within a period of six weeks from the

¶77

date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶78

Sd/JUDGE

¶79

Smt Gangamma v. Mr Suhail Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gangamma v. Mr Suhail Khan

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

Sri Chikkanna Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt Doddakka @ Doddathayamma Vs Sri. Krishnamurthy S B

Smt Mallamma Vs Sri Krishnamurthy S B

Abdul Akram Vs Haidar

The Managing Director Vs Sri Vinay S P

Sri Vinay S P Vs the Managing Director