Allowed

Smt. Srimathi v. Mr. Umesh

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2022MFA/7031/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal against a motor vehicle accident compensation award assessed the quantum of damages. The High Court found the Tribunal's assessment of dependency loss low compared to prescribed guidelines and calculated a higher compensation including interest for future prospects, modifying the award and directing payment.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation by Rs.2,77,500/- from Rs.16,54,435/- to Rs.19,31,935/- with interest at 6% p.a.; directions issued towards new insurance company to deposit the full amount.

Smt. Srimathi Vs Mr. Umesh — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 7031 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7031 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

1 . SMT. SRIMATHI 35 YEARS, W/O. LATE. SRIDHAR ACHARI, H.NO.2-189-2, MOODUMAKKI, MANDARTHI POST, HEGGUNJE VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶13

2 . ARADHYA (MINOR)

¶14

5 YEARS, D/O. LATE SRIDHAR ACHARI, 2ND APPELLANT IS MINOR BY AGE, AGE, REP BY N/F GUARDIAN/MOTHER

¶15

SRIMATHI/1ST APPELLANT H.NO.2-189-2, MOODUMAKKI,MANDARTHI POST, HEGGUNJE VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶16

3 . SMT. LALITHA 63 YEARS, W/O. RUDRA ACHARI

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 7031 of 2019

¶19

H.NO.2-189-2, MOODUMAKKI, MANDARTHI POST, HEGGUNJE VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. 4 . RUDRA ACHARI 69 YEARS, S/O. LATE. NARAYANA ACHARI H.NO.2-189-2, MOODUMAKKI,MANDARTHI POST, HEGGUNJE VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶20

...APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI SADASHIVA D, ADVOCATE THROUGH VC)

¶22

AND:

¶23

1 . MR. UMESH 26 YEARS, S/O. LATE BASAVA POOJARY, R/O. "SHREE VARALAKSHMI NILAYA", YADHADY POST & VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576201. 2 . THE NEW INDIA ASS. CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SRI RAM MARKET, OPP: HEAD POST OFFICE, UDUPI - 576101. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.KRISHNA KISHORE FOR R2(PH) R1 IS SERVED;)

¶24

¶25

MFA No. 7031 of 2019

¶26

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.57/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION .

¶27

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY C.M.JOSHI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

By the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal, though it is posted for orders.

¶30

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 07.03.2019 passed in MVC No.57/2018 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Udupi, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners came to be allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.16,54,435/- together with interest at 6% p.a., petitioners/appellants herein have filed this appeal urging various grounds .

¶31

The parties are referred to as per their nomenclature before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶32

The brief facts of the case are as below:

¶33

¶34

MFA No. 7031 of 2019

¶35

That on 8.10.2017 at about 4.00 A.M. the husband of the first petitioner Sridhar Achary being passenger of tempo traveler bearing Reg.No.KA-20-C-8868 was proceeding towards Bangalore from Udupi on N.H.206. He was sitting on the left front seat. When the said vehicle came near Nittur village, Mysore Road Circle, Tumakur, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the parked goods vehicle and caused the accident. On account of which, initially the deceased has sustained severe head injury. He was admitted to Government Hospital, Udupi. Later on, admitted to KMC Hospital, Manipal. Without responding to the treatment, on 21.10.2017 the husband of the first petitioner succumbed to the injuries.

¶36

It is further case of the petitioners that they have spent considerable amounts for the purpose of food, nourishment, medical treatment, attendant, conveyance and shifting of the dead body, final rites and other ceremonies. The deceased was aged about 41 years as on the date of the accident. He was carpenter by profession and earning Rs.1,000/- per day. The petitioners are entirely depending upon

¶37

¶38

MFA No. 7031 of 2019

¶39

the income of the deceased. As such, they sought for compensation of Rs.32,68,000/-.

¶40

On receipt of notice from the Tribunal, 2nd respondent-Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal through its counsel and filed statement objections denying the petition averments that due to the negligence of driver the offending tempo traveller the accident took place. It is contended that there was no any negligence on the part of the offending vehicle driver. The income, avocation, dependency of the petitioners as averred by the petitioners have been specifically denied and therefore, sought to dismiss the petition with costs.

¶41

On the basis of the above pleadings and contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed necessary issues for its consideration.

¶42

Before the Tribunal, 1st petitioner got examined herself as PW1, examined one eye witness as PW 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P17. 2nd respondent did not adduce or produce any oral or documentary evidence.

¶43

¶44

MFA No. 7031 of 2019

¶45

On hearing both the sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on file, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.16,54,435/- as compensation under different heads as below:

¶46

Loss of dependency	Rs.15,75,000/-
Loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses	Rs. 70,000/-
Medical expenses	Rs. 4,435/-
Conveyance, food, nourishment, attendant charges	Rs. 5,000/-
Total	Rs. 16,54,435/-

¶47

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶48

Respondent No.2- insurance company has appeared in pursuant to the notice issued by this Court. Despite serving of the notice the respondent No.1 has not appeared before this court.

¶49

We have heard learned counsel Sri Sadashiva D appearing for the appellants through video conferencing and

¶50

¶51

MFA No. 7031 of 2019

¶52

the learned counsel Sri S. Krishna Kishore, appearing for the

¶53

Insurance Company.

¶54

The fact that the petitioners/appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased Sridhar achary, and that he succumbed to the injuries on account of the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo traveller bearing No.KA.20.C.8868 is not in dispute. The only point that is urged before us is regarding the quantum of the compensation amount. The records reveal that accident happened on 8-10-2017 and the deceased was aged 41 years at the time of

¶55

the accident. The Tribunal has considered the loss of dependency by holding the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and deducted 1/4th towards the personal expenses and applied multiplier of 14. The records also reveal that the deceased was a carpenter, aged about 41 years and therefore, it can safely be said that he was skilled labourer. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in connection with settlement of disputes before the Loka Adalaths, which is arrived by broadly considering the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and

¶56

¶57

MFA No. 7031 of 2019

¶58

other parameters, monthly income of Rs.11,000/- is prescribed.

¶59

The deceased being aged 41 years, there is no reason to deviate from the same. Therefore, by considering the income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of '14' and by deducting 1/4th towards the personal expenses, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency has to be calculated. The petitioners are also entitled for addition of 25% towards future prospects. Therefore, the income inclusive of the future prospects is taken as Rs.11,000 + 2750 = 13,750/- per month and as such, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.13,750/- x 12 x 14 x 3/4=17,32,500/-.

¶60

So far as the compensation under the head of loss of consortium and love and affection are concerned, in view of the decision in the case of Magma General Insurance Limited Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others¹ a sum of Rs.40,000/each has to be granted to Petitioners No.1 to 4. The petitioners are also entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶61

1 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 1546

¶62

¶63

MFA No. 7031 of 2019

¶64

The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.4,435/-

¶65

towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- conveyance and other expenses, which do not require any interference.

¶66

Therefore, the compensation is re-assessed as

¶67

below:

¶68

Loss of dependency	Rs.17,32,500/-
Loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses	Rs. 1,90,000/-
Medical expenses	Rs. 4,435/-
Conveyance, food, nourishment, attendant charges	Rs. 5,000/-
Total	Rs.19,31,935/-
Less: Awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.16,54,435/-
Enhancement	Rs. 2,77,500/-

¶69

Thus, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, there shall be an increase of Rs.2,77,500/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶70

Hence, we pass the following:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶73

10 -

¶74

MFA No. 7031 of 2019

¶75

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated

¶76

07.03.2019 passed in MVC No.57/2018 by the Tribunal is modified awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.2,77,500/with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶77

(iii) The conditions of apportionment and deposit as ordered by the Tribunal remain unaltered.

¶78

(iv) Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

tsn*

Smt. Srimathi v. Mr. Umesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Srimathi v. Mr. Umesh

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

Srinivasan. M Vs M/S. Tata Aig Insurance Co. Ltd.

State of Karnataka Vs Santhosh

Sri. Shivashankara @ Shankara Vs Sri. Shanavaskeloth

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Sanju Devi

State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Chandrappa

Sanjudevi Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.