Partly allowed

Nagaraju v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2022MFA/4703/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants appealed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award for insufficient compensation regarding their son's death. The High Court recalculated loss of dependency and consortium, enhancing the total compensation to Rs.15,46,400 against the Tribunal's Rs.9,77,200.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.15,46,400 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization.

Nagaraju Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶6

M.F.A.NO.4703/2018 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NAGARAJU

¶9

S/O SIDDAIAH

¶10

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶11

NAGENDRA

¶12

W/O NAGARAJU

¶13

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶14

BOTH ARE R/O AMBEDKAR NAGARA SATHANURU ROAD, CHANNAPATNA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571501

¶15

… APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI.M.RAVINDRANATH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION C.B.E DIVISION 37, METTUPALAYAM ROAD COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU-641001

¶19

...RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI.B. BOPANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYNG TO ALLOW BY SETTING ASIDE OR MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND

¶22

¶23

AWARD DATED 24.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.301/2016 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND ADDL.MACT, CHANNAPATTANA AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶24

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

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Though this appeal is posted for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶27

Not being satisfied with the compensation granted for the death of one Narendra, the son of petitioner No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2 in a motor vehicle accident, petitioners have come up with this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶28

For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.

¶29

Facts: Petitioner No.1 is the father and petitioner No.2 is the brother of the deceased Narendra. On 02.05.2016

¶30

¶31

at about 10.30 p.m deceased Narendra along with one Ashok Kumar, (in respect of whose death MVC.300/2016 is filed) were proceeding on motor cycle bearing registration No.KA 02 EF 2693. When they were in front of KEB office, B.M.Road, Channapatna, the driver of the TSRTC Bus bearing registration No.TN-38-N-2660 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) plying from Bengaluru side towards Mysuru side came in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result of the accident, both Narendra and Ashok Kumar fell down and sustained injuries and died on the spot.

¶32

4.1 Deceased Narendra was aged 22 years and was working as Maison. He was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. Petitioners were dependent on his income. Respondent being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation.

¶33

Defence of respondent: Respondent has filed

¶34

written statement denying that accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving by the driver of the offending

¶35

¶36

vehicle. In fact accident occurred on account of negligent driving by the rider of the motor cycle. Even under no fault liability, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The police without conducting proper investigation and only on the ground that the driver of the bigger vehicle is at fault have filed the charge sheet.

¶37

5.1 The respondent has also denied the age, avocation, income, nature of the injury sustained, cause of death and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶38

Since in the said accident, two deaths have occurred and in respect of another person i.e., Ashok Kumar MVC.300/2016 was filed by his dependents, a common enquiry is held wherein on behalf of the petitioners, two witnesses are examined i.e., PWs-1 and 2 and Ex.P1 to 15 are marked.

¶39

On behalf of respondent, RW-1 is examined and Ex.R1 consisting of two photographs and R1(a) CD are marked.

¶40

¶41

Vide the impugned judgment and award, the

¶42

Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted compensation in a sum of Rs.9,77,200/- with interest at 6%

¶43

p.a. as detailed below:

¶44

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	9,07,200
Transportation of the dead body and	15,000
funeral expenses
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of love and affection	40,000
TOTAL	9,77,200

¶45

Respondent has not challenged the impugned judgment and award.

¶46

Thus petitioners are seeking enhancement contending that the compensation granted is highly insufficient, inadequate and disproportionate and as such they are entitled for enhancement and it is a case for interference by this Court. Therefore, it has become necessary to examine whether the compensation granted under various heads is just and proper and if not, whether it is a fit case for interference.

¶47

¶48

Loss of dependency: The date of incident is 02.05.2016. Based on the PM report, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 22 years as pleaded by the petitioners. Though the petitioners have pleaded that deceased was a Maison and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., they have not produced any documents to prove the exact income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken his income as Rs.200/- per day i.e., Rs.6,000/- p.m. However, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which is based on minimum wages, during the year 2016 the notional income is required to be taken at Rs.9,500/-. Since the deceased was aged 22 years and was doing private work, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma Insurance Co. 40% is required to be added to the income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects. 40% of Rs.9,500/- comes to Rs.3,800/- making the total income Rs.13,300/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased is to be taken as Rs.13,300/-.

¶49

¶50

11.1 Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and therefore petitioners are entitled for 50% of his income towards loss of dependency. As the deceased was aged 22 years, the appropriate multiplier is 18 as taken by the Tribunal. With these figures, the total loss of dependency is 13,300 x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.14,36,400/-. Therefore, under the head loss of dependency the petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.14,36,400/- as against Rs.9,77,200/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶51

Loss of Consortium: The Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of love and affection. However, as per the decision of the Pranay Seti’s case, each of the petitioners are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of consortium. Therefore, together they are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.80,000/- as against Rs.40,000/granted by the Tribunal.

¶52

¶53

Funeral expenses: The Tribunal has granted

¶54

compensation in a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head transportation and funeral expenses which is correct. It requires no interference.

¶55

Loss of estate: The Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.15,000/- under this head which is correct and it also calls for no interference.

¶56

Thus in all petitioners are entitled for total compensation in a sum of Rs.15,46,400/- as against Rs.9,77,200/- granted by the Tribunal with interest at 6%

¶57

p.a. as detailed below:

¶58

Heads	Amount granted by the Tribunal In Rs.	Amount granted by this Court In Rs.
Loss of dependency	9,07,200	14,36,400
Transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses	15,000	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000	15,000
Loss of consortium	40,000	80,000
TOTAL	9,77,200	15,46,400

¶59

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶60

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶63

(ii) Appellants/petitioners are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.15,46,400/- as against Rs.9,77,200/granted by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization (minus the amount already paid/deposited). (iii) Respondent shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

Nagaraju v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraju v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shreyas Vs Sri Satappa

Mr Koragappa Pooojary Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Syed Mushraf Vs Vasanth Kumar B R

Smt. Mangallamma Vs the Managing Director

The State through Adarsh Nagar Police Station Vs Akalak Ahamed S/O Allabax Mulla and Ors.

The Manager Thr Oriendtal Insurance Co..Ltd and Anr. Vs Sumnagala W/O Mannappa Pattar and Ors.