Partly allowed

The Manager v. Ramya B P

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2022MFA/7057/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed part of Motor First Appeals filed by claimants and the insurance company. The court enhanced the compensation amount awarded for loss of dependency in a road accident death case and reduced the interest rate from 8% to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 27,19,400; interest rate reduced to 6% p.a.; Insurance company directed to deposit amount.

The Manager Vs Ramya B P — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 7395 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 7057 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7395 OF 2022(MV-D)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7057 OF 2022(MV-D)

¶10

IN MFA 7395/2022 BETWEEN:

¶11

RAMYA B P W/O LATE SHANKAREGOWDA NOW AGED 33 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

KENCHEGOWDA S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED 62 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT KADILAVAGILU VILLAGE MADDARAHALLI POST, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT NOW R/AT 1ST CROSS, V.V.NAGARA MANDYA TOWN, MANDYA.

¶14

(BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADVOCATE)

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

AND:

¶17

ANANDA M MAJOR, S/O MALLIAH MAJOR R/AT MANGALAL VILLAGE AND POST

¶18

¶19

MFA No. 7395 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 7057 of 2022

¶20

KOTHATHI HOBLI MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 401.

¶21

THE MANAGER

¶22

CHOLAMANDALAM M S GEN.INS.CO.LTD LEVEL 6, 9TH FLOOR GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX RAJAJINAGAR, 4TH M BLOCK BANGALORE-10.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 08.12.2022)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 19.03.2022, PASSED IN MVC NO.1292/2020, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANDYA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

IN MFA 7057/2022 BETWEEN:

¶27

THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM M S GIC LTD NO.1/2 GOLDEN HEIGHTS 6TH FLOOR 59TH C CROSS 4TH M BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-10

¶28

...APPELLANT

¶29

¶30

MFA No. 7395 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 7057 of 2022

¶31

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND

¶33

1 . RAMYA B P W/O LATE SHANKAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶34

2 . KENCHEGOWDA S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶35

BOTH ARE R/AT KADILAVAGILU VILLAGE MADDARAHALLI POST, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT NOW R/AT 1ST CROSS V V NAGARA MANDYA TOWN MANDYA

¶36

3 . ANANDA M S/O MALLAIAH, MAJOR R/AT MANGALA VILLAGE AND POST KOTHATHI HOBLI MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2: NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 08.12.2022)

¶39

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.03.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1292/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 20,58,800/WITH INTEREST AT 8 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶40

¶41

MFA No. 7395 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 7057 of 2022

¶42

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

MFA 7395/2022 is filed by the claimants and MFA 7057/2022 is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 19.3.2022 passed by the MACT, Mandya in MVC 1292/2020.

¶45

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 21.4.2020, when the deceased Shankaregowda was standing on the left side of MandyaK.M.Doddi main road, in front of Maruthi mobile store, at that time, a Ashok Leyland goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-11-B-4421 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶46

¶47

MFA No. 7395 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 7057 of 2022

¶48

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166

¶49

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

¶50

On service of summons, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶51

The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was placed ex-parte.

¶52

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, 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 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that

¶53

6 - MFA No. 7395 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 7057 of 2022

¶54

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.20,58,800/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.

¶55

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

¶56

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 34 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by doing milk vending, sericulture and agricultural work. The claimants are wife and aged father of the deceased. The Tribunal instead of deducting 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses has erred in deducting 50%.

¶57

¶58

MFA No. 7395 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 7057 of 2022

¶59

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

¶60

SC 5157], in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The same has been rightly considered by the Tribunal.

¶61

Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled for Rs.16,500/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.16,500/- towards ‘funeral expenses’.

¶62

Fourthly, as per 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.44,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶63

¶64

MFA No. 7395 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 7057 of 2022

¶65

Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the claimants.

¶66

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following countercontentions:

¶67

Firstly, claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased. The Tribunal considering that wife of the deceased is the only dependent has rightly deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses.

¶68

Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’.

¶69

Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the

¶70

¶71

MFA No. 7395 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 7057 of 2022

¶72

deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

¶73

Lastly, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –vVenkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

¶74

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶75

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶76

It is not in dispute that Shankaregowda died in

¶77

the road traffic accident occurred on 21.4.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶78

10 -

¶79

MFA No. 7395 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 7057 of 2022

¶80

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. But they have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2020, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.14,500/- p.m.

¶81

To the aforesaid income, 40% has been rightly added by the Tribunal on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘PRANAY SETHI’ (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.20,300/-. Since the claimants are wife and aged father of the deceased and both are depending on the income of the deceased, it is appropriate to deduct 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. But the

¶82

11 - MFA No. 7395 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 7057 of 2022

¶83

Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of the income. The deceased was aged about 34 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘16’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.25,98,400/- (Rs.20,3001216*2/3) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶84

In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.16,500/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.16,500/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’. Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

¶85

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

¶86

the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant No.2, father of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’ .

¶87

12 -

¶88

MFA No. 7395 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 7057 of 2022

¶89

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

¶90

compensation:

¶91

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	25,98,400
Funeral expenses	16,500
Loss of estate	16,500
Loss of spousal consortium	44,000
Loss of Filial consortium	44,000
Total	27,19,400

¶92

In the result, the appeals are allowed in part .

¶93

The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶94

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

¶95

Rs.27,19,400/- as against Rs.20,58,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶96

In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra) , the total

¶97

13 -

¶98

MFA No. 7395 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 7057 of 2022

¶99

compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum as

¶100

against 8% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal.

¶101

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the total compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶102

The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶103

Sd/JUDGE

¶104

¶105

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25

The Manager v. Ramya B P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Ramya B P

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. Venkatesh H Vs Shri. Ajjayya C.T

K. Nagaveni Vs Shri Ajjayya C.T.

Nagendrappa Vs Shri Ajjayya C.T

Vanajakshi Vs the Manager

Ramya B P Vs Ananda M

Gangamma Vs Areef