Partly allowed

Smt Geetha Bai v. Sri M Mujeeb

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2022MFA/4838/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1.20 lakhs to Rs. 3.83 lakhs by revising the deceased's notional income based on pensioner benchmarks and applying Supreme Court precedents for consortium and estate losses.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part; the judgment of the Tribunal is modified; the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 3,83,105/-, and the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amou

Smt Geetha Bai Vs Sri M Mujeeb — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.4838 OF 2012(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SMT GEETHA BAI W/O R THUKARAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT 3^RD MAIN, 4^TH CROSS VINOBANAGAR DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶9

2 . MS ASHWINI T GARGE AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶10

D/O R THUKARAMA RAO R/AT 3^RD MAIN 4^TH CROSS,VINOBANAGAR DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶11

3 . MS NANDINI T GARGE D/O R THUKARAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT 3^RD MAIN, 4^TH CROSS,VINOBANAGAR DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶12

...APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. N SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADV.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

1 . SRI M MUJEEB S/O ABDUL MAUNAFSAB AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT I MAIN AZAADNAGAR DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶16

¶17

2 . SRI SIDDARAJU S/O M PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YERS METAL VESSELS & UTENSILS MERCHANT R/AT DOOR NO.1637/10, II MAIN THARALABALUBADAVANE VIDYANAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶18

3 . THE DIVISIONAL /BRANCH MANAGER M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD MELAGIRI PLAZA OPPOSITE OF DENTAL COLLEGE MCC B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.H S LINGARAJ, ADV. FOR R3: SRI. G.S. CHIDAMBARA, ADV. FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 23.07.2015)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SETION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.01.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.41/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.01.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Davangere in MVC No.41/2011.

¶28

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶29

briefly stated are that on 07.03.2010 at about 12.12 p.m., Thukarama Rao was going in his scooter bearing Registration No.KA-22-E-1984 towards Vidhyanagar in

¶30

Davangere City in the extreme left side of the road with a normal speed. When he was moving in his scooter near Canara Bank, Vidhyanagar, Davangere, the driver of the Bajaj Pulsar Motorbike bearing Registration No.KA-17-EA-9090 in a rash and negligent manner with a terrific speed hit the scooter. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶31

¶32

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section

¶33

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

¶34

On service of summons, the respondent

¶35

Nos.1 to 3 have 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.

¶36

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.1 as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited

¶38

¶39

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On behalf of respondents, no witness was examined but got exhibited a document namely Ex.R1. 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.1,20,000/- 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.

¶40

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

¶41

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 63 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. But the

¶42

¶43

Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the

¶44

deceased as Rs.1,170/- is on lower side.

¶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], the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’.

¶46

Thirdly, in view of 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’.

¶47

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶48

the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:

¶49

¶50

Firstly, at the time of the accident, the deceased was retired employee, aged 63 years and he was getting a pension at Rs.1,170/- per month. Except that, the claimants have not produced any document to show that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the notional income at Rs.1,170/- per month.

¶51

Secondly, on appreciation of oral and

¶52

documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶53

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award.

¶54

It is not in dispute that deceased-

¶55

Thukarama Rao died in the road traffic accident

¶56

¶57

occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶58

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. But they have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. Since the deceased was a pensioner, even as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2010, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.5,500/- p.m. In view of the same, in my opinion, the monthly income of the deceased can be assessed as Rs.5,500/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Thus the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,750/-. The deceased was aged about 63 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘7’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of

¶59

¶60

Rs.2,31,000/- (Rs.2,750127) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶61

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

¶62

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.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

¶63

‘loss of parental consortium’.

¶64

The compensation of Rs.2,105/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘Medical Expenses’ is just and reasonable.

¶65

¶66

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the

¶67

following compensation:

¶68

Compensation under	Amount in
different Heads	(Rs.)
Loss of dependency	2,31,000
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of Spousal Consortium	40,000
Loss of Parental consortium	80,000
Medical Expenses	2,105
Total	3,83,105

¶69

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,83,105/- as against Rs.1,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶70

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

¶71

¶72

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

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

HA/-

Smt Geetha Bai v. Sri M Mujeeb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Geetha Bai v. Sri M Mujeeb

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

L.Basavaraj Vs Mohammed Rafeeq

Sri Puttaraju Vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd.

Mohammed Ali Afthab Vs Abdul Azeem

Vasanth Kumar Vs the Manager

The Branch Manager Vs Shankar T

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs N Kadirappa