Partly allowed

Smt Sharadamma v. Sri G Anand

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2022MFA/472/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a Motor Vehicles First Appeal filed by the claimants. The court modified the Tribunal's judgment, enhancing the compensation award from Rs.8,98,313 to Rs.13,02,113 based on specific calculations of loss of dependency and consortium.

What did the court decide?

The claimants were entitled to a total compensation of Rs.13,02,113/-, an enhancement over the Tribunal's award of Rs.8,98,313/-. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with

Smt Sharadamma Vs Sri G Anand — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

1 - MFA No. 472 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT SHARADAMMA W/O. LATE. NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶7

D N DILIP KUMAR S/O. LATE. NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶8

KUM D N SATHYAVATHI D/O. LATE. NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶9

ALL ARE R/AT NO. 102 DEVANAGUNDI VILLAGE AND POST ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK Digitally signed BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. by C MALATHI Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI. KAILAS SHANKAR P S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI G ANAND S/O. GOVINDAPPA MAJOR R/O. KEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE

¶13

¶14

MFA No. 472 of 2022

¶15

KONDASHETTIHALLIL POST TEKAL HOBLI MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRCT

¶16

THE MANAGER THE ROYAL SUNDRAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE RAGHAVENDRA PLAZA 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS HOUSR MAIN ROAD WILSON GARDEN BANGALORE 560027.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. P.S. RAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 05.12.2022)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.4249/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, PRL. MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-1, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

¶23

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by

¶24

the judgment dated 03.09.2021 passed by the Motor

¶25

¶26

MFA No. 472 of 2022

¶27

Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC

¶28

No.4249/2019.

¶29

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 06.07.2019, the deceased Naganna as a rider along with pillion rider was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA.53/Q.9945 from Malur towards Devanagondi Village on Malur Hosur Road. At about 04.00 p.m, they were proceeding over Railway Bridge of Malur Town. At that time, the driver of the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.KA.08/A.368 came from behind in high speed, rash and negligent manner, towards wrong side of the road and dashed against the motorcycle at its rear side. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶30

¶31

MFA No. 472 of 2022

¶32

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166

¶33

of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

¶34

On service of summons, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. 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, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was placed ex-parte.

¶36

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.2 as PW-1 and got exhibited

¶37

¶38

MFA No. 472 of 2022

¶39

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was 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.8,98,313/- 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.

¶40

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

¶41

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 58 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by working as agriculturist. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the

¶42

¶43

MFA No. 472 of 2022

¶44

monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.10,000/-.

¶45

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 10% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ should be the warrant where the deceased was between the age group of 50-60 years. The same may be considered.

¶46

Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

¶47

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.44,000/under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶48

¶49

MFA No. 472 of 2022

¶50

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

¶51

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following countercontentions:

¶52

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- 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.

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

¶56

MFA No. 472 of 2022

¶57

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

¶58

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶59

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

¶60

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- 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 2019, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.14,000/- p.m.

¶61

To the aforesaid income, 10% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by

¶62

¶63

MFA No. 472 of 2022

¶64

the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘PRANAY SETHI’ (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.15,400/-. Since there are three dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.10,267/-. The deceased was aged about 58 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘9’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.11,08,836/(Rs.10,267129) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶65

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’.

¶66

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- under the head of 'loss of

¶67

10 -

¶68

MFA No. 472 of 2022

¶69

spousal consortium', claimant Nos.2 and 3, children of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/-

¶70

each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’.

¶71

The compensation of Rs.28,277/- awarded under the

¶72

head of ‘Medical Expenses’ is just and reasonable.

¶73

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

¶74

compensation:

¶75

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	11,08,836
Funeral expenses	16,500
Loss of estate	16,500
Loss of spousal consortium	44,000
Loss of Parental consortium	88,000
Medical Expenses	28,277
Total	13,02,113

¶76

11 -

¶77

MFA No. 472 of 2022

¶78

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶79

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.13,02,113/- as against Rs.8,98,313/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶80

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit enhanced 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.

¶81

Sd/JUDGE

¶82

¶83

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22

Smt Sharadamma v. Sri G Anand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sharadamma v. Sri G Anand

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

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Govindaraju H C

Nalinakshi Vs Chetan

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Meenakshi

Smt Radha Vs Sri G Anand

Smt Meenakshi Vs the Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt B T Boramma Vs Mohamed Yasin