Partly allowed

Shivanna v. Dayananda a C

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2022MFA/781/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident claim appeal, the High Court held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's income at Rs.10,000/month without proof. The Court recalculated income as Rs.17,500/month before deducting personal expenses, enhancing total compensation to Rs.20,00,000.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the Claims Tribunal was modified; the Insurance Company directed to deposit Rs.20,00,000 along with interest at 6% p.a. within six weeks.

Shivanna Vs Dayananda a C — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.781 OF 2021(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHIVANNA, S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶9

SMT.MANAGALA GOWRAMMA, W/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶10

YOGGESHA.N.S., S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶11

APPELLANT NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/O NIRUVAGALLU KAREKODI, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKAYANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK – 572 214. TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI.JAGADEESH.H.T., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

DAYANANDA A.C., S/O CHIKKANNA, MAJOR, R/AT APPANAHALLI VILLAGE, HAAGALVADI HOBLI,

¶16

¶17

GUBBI TALUK,

¶18

TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 212.

¶19

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT BALAJI TOWERS,1^ST FLOOR, ASHOK NAGAR, B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR – 572 101. REP BY MANAGER.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.H.S.LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.01.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.542/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND XIX MACT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CALIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

¶26

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’,

¶27

for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.01.2021 passed

¶28

¶29

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

¶30

Chikkanayakanahalli in MVC No.542/2019.

¶31

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶32

briefly stated are that on 26.10.2018 at about 01.00 PM, the deceased was returning to his Village by walk on the left side of the road and when he was near the house of Siddaiah, the driver of the JCB bearing Registration No.KA-06-P-3689 came in high speed, rash and negligent manner dashed to the deceased from back side. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶33

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

¶34

On service of summons, the respondent

¶35

Nos.1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the offending

¶36

¶37

vehicle have appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶38

It was pleaded by the owner that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the deceased and not on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. It was further pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with Insurance Company and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident and the driver of the offending vehicle had valid driving licence. Hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

¶39

It was pleaded by the Insurance Company that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. The liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The age, occupation and income of the

¶40

¶41

deceased are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶42

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶43

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 got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. On behalf of respondents, neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document on their behalf. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter

¶44

alia, held that 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.11,60,000/- along with interest at

¶45

¶46

the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶47

Sri Jagadeesh H. T., learned counsel for the

¶48

claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶49

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident

¶50

and he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by working as Coolie. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.10,000/-.

¶51

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 SC 5157], in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards ‘future

¶52

¶53

prospects’ should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The same may be considered.

¶54

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/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶55

Lastly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

¶56

Per contra, Sri H. S. Lingaraj, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:

¶57

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, the same is not established by the claimants by producing

¶58

¶59

documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly

¶60

assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

¶61

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

¶62

Lastly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶63

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

¶64

It is not in dispute that Umesh died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶65

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. But they have not produced

¶66

¶67

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 2018, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m.

¶68

To the aforesaid income, 40% 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.17,500/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor as on the date of the accident, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards ‘personal expenses’ and thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.8,750/-. The deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘18’.

¶69

¶70

Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.18,90,000/- (Rs.8,7501218) on account of ‘loss

¶71

of dependency’.

¶72

In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’.

¶73

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.1 and 2, parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/each under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’ .

¶74

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the

¶75

following compensation:

¶76

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	18,90,000
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of Filial consortium	80,000
Total	20,00,000

¶77

¶78

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- as against Rs.11,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶79

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.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

HA/-

Shivanna v. Dayananda a C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivanna v. Dayananda a C

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 Nouws Bage @ Nubach Bage Vs the Managing Director

Mr.Nagaraj Vs Mr.Mahaboob Shariff

A.v.Shobha Vs Ganjeppagari Ampanna

Anusha Vs H S Surendra

The Divisional Manger Vs Smt Jayamma

Sri. Arkesh Vs Sri. Shivalingaiah