Allowed

Smt Rangamma B v. H G Chandramouli

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2022MFA/4675/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Partial Award under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court of Karnataka enhanced the compensation awarded to dependents of a deceased in a road traffic accident. The Court modified the Tribunal's award by calculating a higher notional income and adding consortium amounts, revising the total from Rs.9,39,000 to Rs.24,07,600.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal modified; claimants entitled to total compensation of Rs.24,07,600/- instead of Rs.9,39,000/-; payment directed to Respondent.

Smt Rangamma B Vs H G Chandramouli — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.4675 OF 2020(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SMT.RANGAMMA B, W/O LATE ASHOKA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE,

¶9

2 . KUM. BINDU, D/O LATE ASHOKA, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,

¶10

3 . MARUTHI, S/O LATE ASHOKA, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS,

¶11

APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1

¶12

4 . SIDDAMMA, W/O LATE, HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE,

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT GILIKENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI.SHIVAKUMARAPPA T C, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

AND:

¶18

1 . H G CHANDRAMOULI S/O LATE H GURUBASAPPA MAJOR, PROP. ESHWAR MOTOR SERVICES CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶19

2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., OPP. DENTAL COLLEGE, MCC B-BLOCK, II FLOOR, MELAGIRI PLAZA, DAVANAGERE-577 004.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.NANDITHA K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.C.M.POONACHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1119/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MACT, HOLALKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

¶26

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’,

¶27

for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.11.2018 passed

¶28

¶29

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Holalkere in MVC No.1119/2017.

¶30

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶31

briefly stated are that 14.04.2017 at about 10.30 A.M. the deceased was crossing the road near Malladihally

¶32

Cross on NH-13 road at Holalkere Taluk, at that time, the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-16/B-6339 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations, dashed to the deceased. As a result of the same, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶33

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

¶34

On service of summons, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

It was pleaded by the owner of the offending vehicle that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid driving licence, route permit and also policy was in force at the time of the accident. Therefore, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation.

¶38

It was pleaded by the insurer of the offending vehicle that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and also negligence on the part of the deceased. The driver of the offending vehicle did not holding route permit to ply on which the place the said accident was occurred.

¶39

¶40

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, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶41

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶42

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 another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited a document namely Ex.R.1. 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

¶43

¶44

of Rs.9,39,000/- 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.

¶45

Sri Shivakumarappa T.C., learned counsel

¶46

for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶47

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident. The deceased was working as a Vegetable Merchant and Agriculturist and was earning Rs.22,000/- per month. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.6,000/-.

¶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

¶49

¶50

40% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ should be the warrant where the deceased was aged below 40 years and the claimants are entitled Rs.15,000/for ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.15,000/- for ‘loss of estate’. The same may be considered.

¶51

Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 , each of the claimants are entitled for compensation under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶52

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

¶53

Per contra, Smt. Nanditha.K, learned

¶54

counsel for Sri C. M. Poonacha, learned counsel for

¶55

¶56

the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:

¶57

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.22,000/- 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.

¶58

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

¶59

Thirdly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘PRANAY SETHI’ (supra), claimants are entitled Rs.15,000/- for ‘funeral expenses’. But the Tribunal has granted Rs.25,000/- is on higher side.

¶60

Lastly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded just and

¶61

¶62

reasonable compensation. Hence, he prays for

¶63

dismissal of the appeal.

¶64

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶65

and perused the judgment and award.

¶66

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

¶67

Even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.22,000/- per month, they have not produced any document to establish the same. Under thus circumstances, the notional income has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2017, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.

¶68

To the aforesaid amount, 40% of the income of the deceased has to be added on account of future

¶69

¶70

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.15,400/-. Since there are four dependents, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4^th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.11,550/-. The deceased was aged about 32 years

¶71

at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘16’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.22,17,600/(Rs.11,5501612) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶72

In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’.

¶73

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

¶74

¶75

(supra) claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium', claimant Nos.2 and 3, children of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’ and claimant No.4, mother of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/under the head ‘loss of filial consortium’ .

¶76

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the

¶77

following compensation:

¶78

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	22,17,600
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of spousal consortium	40,000
Loss of Parental consortium	80,000
Loss of Filial consortium	40,000
Total	24,07,600

¶79

¶80

In the result, the appeal is allowed in

¶81

part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶82

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.24,07,600/- as against Rs.9,39,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶83

The Insurance Company 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 of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶84

This Court while condoning the delay, has denied the interest for a period of 317 days. Hence, the claimants are not entitled for the interest for the

¶85

delayed period in filing the appeal.

¶86

Sd/JUDGE

¶87

HA/-

Smt Rangamma B v. H G Chandramouli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rangamma B v. H G Chandramouli

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. G M Sunitha Vs Sri. Hiriyanna H P

Basavaraja Vs Ganji Lingareddy

Smt Shivalingamma Vs M/S Geekom Logistic Pvt. Ltd.

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt Vidya

Smt Padmavathi Vs Sri Shaik Shajahan

Smt. Shilpha Vs Sri. N. Nagaraju