Partly allowed

Smt. Shilpha v. Sri. N. Nagaraju

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2022MFA/7509/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court modified the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in an appeal by claimants and insurance company, enhancing total compensation to Rs. 16,28,750 while reducing interest from 9% to 6% p.a. to adhere to Division Bench decisions.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 16,28,750/; interest rate on deposit reduced from 9% to 6% p.a.; insurance company directed to deposit within six weeks.

Smt. Shilpha Vs Sri. N. Nagaraju — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.7509 OF 2019 (MV) C/W MFA No.5942 OF 2019 (MV)

¶7

IN MFA NO.7509/2019:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SHILPHA D/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

¶10

VENKATARAJU S/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶11

SMT. GAYATHRI D/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

¶12

NAGARAJU S/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS.

¶13

NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.

¶14

¶15

SOUJANYA D/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS.

¶16

PETITIONER NOS.5 & 6 IS MINORS REPRESENTED BY HIS BROTHER VENKATARAJU S/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA (PETITIONER NO.2) AS GUARDIAN.

¶17

ALL ARE R/AT.THOKALAHALLI VILLAGE, SIDLAGATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 102.

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

SRI. N.NAGARAJU S/O. SRI. NARAYANAPPA D NO.9-70/8/3, NANDI SETTI STREET, B.KOTHAKOTA VILLAGE, BEERANGI KOTHAKOTA, CHITTOOR, ANDRAPRADESH-517 370.

¶22

THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, E-8, EPIP, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302 022. REGIONAL MANAGER, BENGALURU.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADV FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶25

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.28.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.204/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, SIDLAGHATTA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

IN MFA NO.5942/2019:

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

THE MANAGER M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, E-8, EPIP, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302 022.

¶30

NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶31

M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.3/5, 3^RD FLOOR, S.V.ARCADE, BILEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD, OFF BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, IIM POST, BANGALORE-576 302.

¶32

…APPELLANT

¶33

(BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶34

¶35

AND:

¶36

SMT. SHILPHA D/O. LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

¶37

VENKATARAJU S/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶38

SMT. GAYATHRI D/O. LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

¶39

NAGARAJU S/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS.

¶40

NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.

¶41

SOUJANYA D/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS.

¶42

PETITIONER NO.5 & 6 ARE MINOR REPRESENTED BY BROTHER AND 1^ST REPONDENT.

¶43

ALL ARE RESIDENT AT THOKALAHALLI VILLAGE, SIDDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶44

¶45

N. NAGARAJU

¶46

S/O. NARAYANAPPA R/O. D.NO. 9-70/8/3, NANDI SETTI STREET, B.KOTHAKOTA VILLAGE, BEERANGI KOTHAKOTA, CHITTOOR, ANDRAPRADESH-517 370.

¶47

…RESPONDENTS

¶48

(BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADV FOR R1 TO R6 NOTICE TO R7 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶49

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.28.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.204/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, SIDLAGHATTA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.14,55,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.

¶50

THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

MFA 7509/2019 is filed by the claimants and

¶53

MFA 5942/2019 is filed by the Insurance Company

¶54

under Section under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’,

¶55

¶56

for short), being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.12.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sidlaghatta in MVC No.204/2015.

¶57

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 05.10.2014, when the deceased Venkataramanappa was proceeding on a TVS-XL Super Heavy Duty bearing registration No.KA40-R-1120, on Chinthamani Dibburalli main road, at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-35-A1197 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.

¶58

The claimants filed a petition under Section

¶59

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

¶60

¶61

On service of summons, the respondent

¶62

No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶63

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

¶64

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶65

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.2 Venkataraju as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. 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 the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the

¶66

¶67

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.14,55,000/along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶68

The learned counsel for the Insurance

¶69

Company has raised the following contentions:

¶70

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, the same is not established by the claimants by producing documents. The notional income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000/- per month, which is on higher side.

¶71

Secondly, as per the aadhar card, as on the date of accident, deceased was aged about 47 years. The

¶72

¶73

tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 43 years, the error is apparent on the face of the records.

¶74

Thirdly, he contends that in view of judgment of a Division Bench in the case of JOYEETA BOSE –VUNITED INSURANCE CO. , interest awarded by the tribunal at 9% is on higher side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance company.

¶75

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

¶76

Firstly, the claimants claim that at the time of the accident deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by working as stone cutter. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.9,000/- is on lower side.

¶77

¶78

Secondly, he contended that as per the ration card, as on the date of the accident, deceased was aged about 33 years. The tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 43 years, is an error apparent on the face of records.

¶79

Thirdly, 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.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶80

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶81

It is not in dispute that deceased Venkataramanappa died in the road traffic accident

¶82

¶83

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶84

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 2014, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.8,500/p.m.

¶85

To the aforesaid income, 25% has to be added 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.10,625/-. Since there are 5 dependants 1/4^th of the income of the deceased has to

¶86

¶87

be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and remaining amount i.e. Rs.7,969/- has to be taken as his contribution to the family.

¶88

As per the ration card-Ex-P13, produced by the claimants, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 33 years and as per the aadhar card-Ex-P12, the age of the deceased has been mentioned as 47 years. The tribunal as per the medical records, the age of the deceased was shown as 43 years. The tribunal after considering all these documents and material available on record has rightly come to the conclusion that deceased was aged about 43 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the age of the deceased has to be considered as 43 years and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘14’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.13,38,750/(Rs.10,625123/4*14) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶89

¶90

In addition, the claimants are entitled to

¶91

compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’.

¶92

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.1 to 6, children of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’.

¶93

The compensation granted by tribunal under the head of ‘medical expenses’ at Rs.10,000/- and under the head of ‘transportation charges, attendant charges and nourishment charges’ at Rs.10,000/- is retained.

¶94

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

¶95

¶96

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	13,38750
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of Parental consortium	2,40,000
Medical expenses	10,000
Transportation charges, attendant charges and nourishment charges	10,000
Total	16,28,750

¶97

In the result, the appeals are allowed in part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶98

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.16,28,750/- as against Rs. 14,55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶99

In respect of granting interest on the compensation is concerned, in view of the Division Bench decision of this in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose (supra), the interest granted by the Tribunal at

¶100

¶101

the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is reduced to 6% p.a.

¶102

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

¶103

In view of the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 164 days in filing the appeal.

¶104

The amount in deposit is ordered to be

¶105

transferred to the tribunal forthwith.

¶106

Sd/JUDGE

¶107

Smt. Shilpha v. Sri. N. Nagaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shilpha v. Sri. N. Nagaraju

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

Smt. G M Sunitha Vs Sri. Hiriyanna H P

Basavaraja Vs Ganji Lingareddy

Smt Shivalingamma Vs M/S Geekom Logistic Pvt. Ltd.

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt Vidya

Smt Padmavathi Vs Sri Shaik Shajahan

Smt Rangamma B Vs H G Chandramouli