Partly allowed

T. Sudha Bai v. K. H. Rajkumar

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2022MFA/5656/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal sought enhancement of compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident claim. The Court modified the Tribunal's award, reassessing loss of dependency and increasing loss of consortium compensation based on Supreme Court precedents, granting enhanced total compensation.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.11,41,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from date of petition till realization.

T. Sudha Bai Vs K. H. Rajkumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5656 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

T.SUDHA BAI

¶8

W/O.LATE K.CHANDRA NAIK AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶9

TARUN NAIK S/O.LATE K.CHANDRA NAIK AGED ABOUT 02 YEARS

¶10

K.C.SHIVANA NAIK S/O.LATE K.CHANDRA NAIK AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶11

RETD. GOVT. EMPLOYEE

¶12

KAMALAMMA B.

¶13

W/O.K.SHIVANA NAIK AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS HOUSEHOLD WORK

¶14

A-2 IS MINOR REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1

¶15

ALL ARE R/AT C/O.E.KUMAR VISWA GEETHA COMPLEX KSRTC DEPOT ROAD

¶16

NEAR GURUKULA PRIMARY SCHOOL CHITRADURGA-577 501

¶17

...APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

AND:

¶21

K.H.RAJKUMAR

¶22

S/O.HANUMANTHAREDDY MAJOR OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA-16/C-1804 R/AT VITTALPURA, HANAGAL MOLKALMURU TALUK-577 535

¶23

THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.9/1, ULSOOR ROAD BENGALURU-560 042 …RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI H.S.LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 28.01.2019)

¶25

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1037/2016 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, CHITRADURGA.

¶26

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

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the appellants-claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 19.01.2018 passed in MVC No.1037/2016 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Chitradurga, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

¶29

¶30

Brief facts of the case is as under:

¶31

On 15.04.2016 at about 10.30 p.m., the deceased

¶32

Chandra Naik was driving his Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No.KA-16/B-2619 after unloading onion bags in Malur and while returning to Challakere, near NH-150(A) Road, Kukkavadeshwari Daba Hotel, Gopanahalli gate, the driver of the Lorry bearing registration No.KA-16/C-1804 came from Challakere side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed to the said Bolero vehicle from opposite direction. As a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same.

¶33

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellantsclaimants under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation for the death caused in the accident. The tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.9,64,000/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The tribunal held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶34

¶35

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company and perused the materials on record.

¶36

Learned counsel for appellants-claimants submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded under various heads is on lesser side. Therefore, he seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

¶38

In the present case, the tribunal has awarded the

¶39

compensation under various heads as follows:

¶40

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Towardsloss ofdependency	8,64,000-00
2	Towards loss of consortium of petitioner No.1	40,000-00
3	Towards loss of love and affect	30,000-00
4	Towards loss of estate	15,000-00
5	Towards transportation of dead body and obsequies ceremonies	15,000-00
	Total	9,64,000-00

¶41

¶42

The age of the deceased was 33 years and he was a driver by profession. The tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on lesser side. However, the tribunal has not considered the loss of future prospects. Even though it is stated by PW.3, who is the employer of the deceased that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month, no proof is produced to that effect. As per the notional income determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the year 2016, the notional income ought to be taken at Rs.9,500/- per month. As per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI & ORS. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 40% income is to be added towards loss of future prospects. 1/4^th is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. The tribunal has rightly taken the multiplier as ‘16’. Hence, the 'loss of dependency' including loss of future prospects is hereby re-assessed and quantified as follows:

¶43

Rs.9,500/- + Rs.3,800/- (40%) = Rs.13,300/Rs.13,300/- x 3/4^th X 16 X 12 = Rs.19,15,200/-

¶44

¶45

Thus, a sum of Rs.19,15,200/- is awarded towards 'loss of dependency'.

¶46

The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of consortium' and Rs.30,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection'. As per the decision of Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram

¶47

reported in (2018)18 SCC 130 , each dependents are entitled to the compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium'. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- X 4) is awarded under 'loss of consortium'.

¶48

The quantum of compensation awarded under

¶49

the head 'loss of estate' and 'transportation expenses' is correct and same is kept intact.

¶50

Thus, claimants would be entitled to following

¶51

compensation:

¶52

Sl.	Particulars	Enhancement
No.		(Rs.)
1	Loss of dependency	19,15,200-00
2	Loss of Consortium including loss of love and affection	1,60,000-00
3	Loss of estate	15,000-00	kept intact

¶53

¶54

4	Towards transportation dead body obsequies ceremonies	of and	15,000-00	kept intact
	TOTAL		21,05,200-00

¶55

The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.9,64,000/-, but the appellants/claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.21,05,200/- . Hence, the appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.11,41,200/- (Rs.21,05,200/Rs.9,64,000/-). Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.11,41,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶56

13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

Appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶59

The impugned judgment and award dated 19.01.2018 passed in MVC No.1037/2016 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Chitradurga, is modified to the extent that the appellants/claimants are

¶60

¶61

entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.11,41,200/- along with the rate of interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶62

Draw award accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

T. Sudha Bai v. K. H. Rajkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Sudha Bai v. K. H. Rajkumar

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

Shivegowda @ Shivanna Vs Divisional Controller

The Manager Vs Smt. Thaseen

Lakshmamma Vs Ramesh K. N.

Siddaiah Vs S. K. Srinivas

The Regional Manager Vs Sri Suresh

Nandisha G M Vs the Managing Director