Partly allowed

Nataraj v. Manjunatha. B. R.

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2022MFA/4763/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly and enhanced compensation from Rs.3,39,000 to Rs.10,17,200. The Court held that the 17-year-old deceased was an adolescent, not a child, allowing a higher notional income and multiplier under the Motor Vehicles Act.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.10,17,200 awarded; additional Rs.6,78,200 with interest from the insurance company.

Nataraj Vs Manjunatha. B. R. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 4763 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4763 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NATARAJ S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: FDC IN BSNL

¶9

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SMT B V KAMALA W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O BSNL QUARTERS BELT ROAD CHIKMAGALORE-577101.

¶11

(BY SRI. VINOD GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

AND:

¶14

MANJUNATHA. B. R. S/O RAMACHANDRA B V AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, CAB DRIVER R/O NO.192/2, IN FRONT OF VIJAYASHREE SCHOOL, BAGALAKUNTE, BENGALURU-560022.

¶15

ABHISHEK B N S/O R NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

¶16

¶17

MFA No. 4763 of 2018

¶18

R/O BELT ROAD CHIKMAGALUR-577101

¶19

THE SENIJOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR S S COMPELX, ABOVE HARSHA B H ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577201

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B.A. RAMAKRIHSNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R1 & R2NOTICE D/W V/O DT:15/11/2022)

¶22

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED16.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.23/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ for brevity) by the appellant–claimant, calling in question the judgment and award dated 16.03.2018, passed in M.V.C.No.23/2017, on the file of the 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

¶26

¶27

MFA No. 4763 of 2018

¶28

Chikkamagaluru, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) for seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶29

Brief facts:

¶30

On 02.03.2016 at about 10.00 p.m., when the

¶31

deceased B.N. Harshith was proceeding as a pillion rider on a Bajaj Pulser 220 F motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-18/EC-1006 near Kiran Bakery opposite on R.G.

¶32

Road, Chikkamagaluru, the first respondent being the rider of the said motorcycle, drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner in excessive speed, as a result, he has lost his control over the vehicle and both of them fell down on the left side of the road along with the vehicle. Due to this accident, the pillion rider B.N. Harshith had sustained grievous injuries to his head, ear and other parts of the body. He was shifted to M.G. Hospital, Chikkamagaluru. Again he was shifted to Holycross Hospital as per the advice of the Doctor and thereafter shifted to Sahyadri Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital, Shivamogga wherein he

¶33

¶34

MFA No. 4763 of 2018

¶35

was succumbed to injuries on 03.03.2016, due to the

¶36

accidental injuries.

¶37

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the

¶38

appellants-claimants under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased in the accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on

¶39

record, allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,39,000/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal held respondent No.3 – insurance company, liable to pay the compensation.

¶40

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned counsel for respondent No.3 – insurance company and perused the materials on record.

¶41

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as follows:

¶42

¶43

MFA No. 4763 of 2018

¶44

Loss of dependency	: Rs.	2,94,000/-
Loss of love and affection	: Rs.	15,000/-
Loss of Estate	: Rs.	15,000/-
Funeral Expenses & Transportation of dead body	: Rs.	15,000/-

¶45

TOTAL : Rs. 3,39,000/-

¶46

In the present case, the deceased was 17 years. The Tribunal has committed error in adopting the notional income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- per month as it is on lesser side. The accident occurred during the year 2016. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment passed in the case of CHETANA AND OTHERS VS. BABUJI.M¹ , has observed at para – 10, 11 and 13 as follows:

¶47

10. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 17 years as on the date of the accident. He might not be an adult but he cannot be considered as a child. He has to be considered as an adolescent. Section 2 (i) and

¶48

1 MFA No.102268/2019 dated 13.11.2022

¶49

¶50

MFA No. 4763 of 2018

¶51

(ii) of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) defines as follows:

¶52

“(i) “adolescent” means a person who has completed his fourteenth year of age abut has

¶53

not completed his eighteenth year; “(ii) “child” means a person who has not completed his fourteenth year of age or such age as may be specified in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009), whichever is more.”

¶54

11. Section 3 of the Act prohibits employment of a child in certain occupations and processes. The said Act does not prohibit the adolescent of 17 years to involve in a milk vending business. The deceased and his family are from rural area and it is common for a person of 17 years to be involved in milk vending or similar occupations. The Tribunal has completely lost sight of this fact and the reasoning is contrary to and in the teeth of the statutory provisions.

¶55

13. The Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others reported in AIR 2013 SC 5037. In the said case, the age of the person involved in the accident was 10 years. The said

¶56

¶57

MFA No. 4763 of 2018

¶58

ratio cannot be applied to the case of an adolescent who is 15 years and above.”

¶59

Therefore, in the present case the deceased is

¶60

‘Adolescent Child’ as per Section-2(i) and (ii) of the Child

¶61

And Adolescent Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986, in the present case the deceased being 17 years old, accordingly, the deceased cannot be termed as strictly as a child, therefore the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CHETANA’s stated supra is applicable. The appellants-claimants have claimed that the deceased was doing part time job in a Finance as Pygmy collector and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Further, income of Rs.1,000/- is added to the said amount. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month is taken. Further, 40% of the income is to be added towards ‘ Loss Of Future Prospects’ and 50% of income is to be deducted towards ‘Living And Personal Expenses’ , since the deceased was a bachelor. The deceased was

¶62

¶63

MFA No. 4763 of 2018

¶64

aged 17 years at the time of the accident, therefore the appropriate multiplier applicable as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Smt.Sarla

¶65

Verma & Others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn And Another² is ‘18’. Therefore, the compensation under the head ‘Loss Of Dependency along with Loss of Future Prospects in Life’ is recalculated and quantified as follows:

¶66

Rs.6,000/- + 2,400 (40% of 6,000) = Rs.8,400/Rs.8,400 – 4,200 (50% of 8,400) x 18 x 12 = Rs.9,07,200/-

¶67

As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

¶68

in the cases of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited

¶69

v. Nanu Ram & Others³ and in the case of National

¶70

Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi⁴ , the claimants are

¶71

entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head ‘ Loss Of

¶72

2 AIR 2009 SC 3104

¶73

3 2018 ACJ 2782

¶74

4 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶75

¶76

MFA No. 4763 of 2018

¶77

Consortium’ . Accordingly, Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2)

¶78

is awarded under the head ‘Loss Of Consortium including Loss Of Love And Affection’ . Further, compensation of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the head

¶79

‘Loss Of Estate And Funeral And Transportation’ .

¶80

9. Thus, in all the appellants/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation as follows:

¶81

Loss of Dependency Along with : Rs. 9,07,200/Loss of Future Prospects 6,000/- + 2,400 (40% of 2,400) – 4,200 (50% of 8,400) x 18 x 12 Loss of Consortium, Love and : Rs. 80,000/Affection (Rs.40,000 x2) Loss Of Estate And Funeral And : Rs. 30,000/Transportation TOTAL : Rs. 10,17,200/-

¶82

Therefore, the appellants-claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,17,200/- as against Rs.3,39,000/-. The appellants – claimants are entitled for

¶83

10 -

¶84

MFA No. 4763 of 2018

¶85

an additional compensation of Rs.6,78,200/-

¶86

(Rs.10,17,200 – Rs.3,39,000) along with interest at 6%

¶87

per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of total compensation within Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶88

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶89

ORDER

¶90

i. The appeal is allowed in part .

¶91

ii. The impugned judgment and award 16.03.2018, passed in M.V.C.No.23/2017, on the file of the 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chikkamagaluru is modified to the aforesaid extent.

¶92

11 -

¶93

MFA No. 4763 of 2018

¶94

iii. The appellants – claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.6,78,200/(Rs.10,17,200 – Rs.3,39,000) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶95

iv. Respondent No.3 – insurance company shall pay the compensation to the appellants/claimants.

¶96

v. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶97

vi. Draw award accordingly.

¶98

vii. No order as to costs.

¶99

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

¶100

Sd/JUDGE

¶101

Nataraj v. Manjunatha. B. R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nataraj v. Manjunatha. B. R.

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 Arun Kumar D K Vs Sri Doresha G S

Smt Asha Vs Parashurama

R Ashwini Vs Syed Nawaz

Sri.B.G.Chandru Vs the Manager

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt Farida Begum Abdul Gaffar

Manjula Vs Sunderraj G