Partly allowed

Smt. Shivakumari v. K. Abdul Hameed

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2022MFA/6261/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court enhanced compensation for loss of dependency and consortium based on established Supreme Court precedents, raising the total from Rs. 10.78 lakhs to Rs. 19.22 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment modified; compensation enhanced from Rs. 10,78,000 to Rs. 19,22,584 with 6% interest payable by insurer within six weeks.

Smt. Shivakumari Vs K. Abdul Hameed — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶7

M.F.A.No.6261/2018 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

1 . SMT. SHIVAKUMARI W/O. LATE DEVARAJAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶10

2 . DEEPIKA. H. D. D/O. LATE DEVARAJAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS

¶11

3 . DIWAKAR. H. D. S/O. LATE DEVARAJAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 09 YEARS

¶12

4 . DHANUSH. H. D. S/O. LATE DEVARAJAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 07 YEARS

¶13

APPELLANT NO.2 TO 4 BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER, APPELLANT NO.1

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDING AT HIRIKATI VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK

GUNDLUPET-571 109

….APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. BHANU PRAKASH H.V., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

1 . K. ABDUL HAMEED S/O. KUNHALLI AGED MAJOR R/AT NO. 189, 3^RD STAGE NACHANAHALLI, KOPPALURU J. P. NAGAR MYSURU-570 008.

¶21

2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED T.P. HUB, BALLAL CIRCLE SUB-URBAN BUS STATION B.N. ROAD MYSURU-570 001

¶22

…. RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DTD.13.07.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶24

¶25

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.343/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MACT, GUNDLUPET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement

¶30

of the compensation awarded by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupet and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) vide its judgment and award dated March 9^th , 2018 in MVC No.343/2017.

¶31

The brief facts of the case are that, on 20.06.2017 at about 6.45 p.m., the deceased-Shri Devarajamurthy met with an accident, as he was knocked down by a lorry bearing No. KA.09.C.4555, when he was standing near the Hirikati Village Gate. Due to the said accident, Shri Devarajamurthy sustained grievous injuries on the head and other parts of the body and died on the spot. The driver of the offending lorry was prosecuted and the claimants being the widow and minor children of the deceased, have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal in MVC No.343/2017.

¶32

Respondent No.1-Sri.Abdul Hameed being the owner of the said offending lorry and Respondent No.2-M/s. United Insurance Co. Limited being the insurer of the offending lorry, have contested the matter before the Tribunal. The Tribunal

¶33

¶34

after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has awarded compensation of Rs.10,78,000/- under various heads, as under:-

¶35

Sl.No.	Compensation Heads	Amount in Rupees
1	Loss of income due to death of deceased	1,08,000-00
2	Loss of estate	15,000-00
3	Funeral Expenses	15,000-00
4	Consortium	40,000-00
	Total	10,78,000-00

¶36

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would contend that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The deceased was an employee of the Reo Meridian Hotel, Mysuru and he was drawing salary of Rs.16,000/- p.m. He would also contend that, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards ‘Loss of Future Prospects

¶38

¶39

of Life’ and the compensation awarded under the head of ‘Consortium’ is also not just and proper. Hence, he sought for awarding of just and proper compensation under the above heads.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondent/insurer would fairly concede that, the liability has been admitted. He would contend that, in the absence of any material evidence regarding the income of the deceased, the notional income ought to have been taken and hence it can be taken at Rs.11,000/- and the compensation towards ‘Loss of Future Prospects of Life’ ought to have been awarded at the rate of 25% of actual income. Hence, he would seek for awarding appropriate compensation under these heads.

¶41

It is claimed that deceased was an employee of Reo Meridian Hotel, Mysuru, and he was drawing salary of Rs.16,000/-. But, no documents have been produced to substantiate the said contention and the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that, no documents are available. This Court has been consistently considering the notional income of Rs.11,000/- per month in respect of the accidents occurred in the year 2017. The Lok-

¶42

¶43

Adalat chart also supports this view. Admittedly, the accident has occurred on 20.06.2017 and on the same day, the victim succumbed to injuries, on the spot. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of Rs.8,000/-, which is on the lower side and same ought to have been taken at Rs.11,000/-.

¶44

Admittedly, the deceased Devarajamurthy was not a Government Employee. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards ‘Loss of future Prospects’. The deceased was aged about 42 years as on the date of accident, as per Ex.P6. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others [(2018) 18 SCC 130], since the deceased was not having any permanent employment, the claimants would be entitled for 25% of his monthly income towards ‘Loss of Future Prospects of Life’.

¶45

By considering the age of the deceased as 42 years as on the date of the accident and he was having four dependents, 1/4^th amount of his monthly income is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses, and he would have contributed 3/4^th of his monthly income to his family.

¶46

¶47

Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [AIR 2009 SC 3104], since the deceased was aged 42 years as on the date of the alleged accident, the multiplier ‘14’ is applicable. As such, the loss of future prospects works out to Rs.2,750/- (25% of Rs.11,000/-) and if the same is added to his monthly income, it would works to Rs.13,750/( Rs.11,000+Rs.2,750/-) and after deducting 1/4th of the said amount towards personal expenses, the loss of monthly income works-out to Rs.10,313/-. Therefore, considering the age of deceased as ‘42 years’ and after applying multiplier of ‘14’, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.17,32,584/- (Rs,10,313 x 12 x 14).

¶48

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- under the head of consortium. However, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Singh and Another Vs. Satbir Singh and Another [(2008) 2 SCC 667], the appellants/Claimants No. 1 to 4 are entitled for Rs.40,000/each towards ‘Loss of Consortium’, which works out to Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 4).

¶49

¶50

Since the compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘Loss of Estate’ and Rs.15,000/awarded towards ‘Funeral Expenses’ and also the rate of interest is appropriate, it does not call for any interference by this Court and it is kept intact.

¶51

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants/claimants are entitled for additional compensation. The award of revised compensation under different heads, is as under:-

¶52

Sl.No.	Compensation Heads	Amount in Rupees
1	Loss of income due to death of deceased/Loss ofdependency	17,32,584-00
2	Loss of estate	15,000-00
3	Funeral Expenses	15,000-00
4	Consortium	1,60,000-00
	Total	19,22,584.00

¶53

In the result, we pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) The appeal is partly allowed;

¶56

¶57

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal viz., Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupet, is modified. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.10,78,000/- to Rs. 19,22,584/-. Accordingly, appellants/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 8,44,584/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Four only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit/realisation.

¶58

(iii) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement are as per the order of the Tribunal.

¶59

(iv) The second respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

No Costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*

Smt. Shivakumari v. K. Abdul Hameed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shivakumari v. K. Abdul Hameed

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

Regional Manager Vs Deve Gowda L P

Sri. Devegowda L.P. Vs Jet Roadlines Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Binoy John Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt Senkavitha

Veerakyatharaya Vs Muknaram

The Union of India Vs D R Shivakumar