Partly allowed

The Managing Director v. Smt S S Sudha

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2022MFA/8158/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows appeals in part, modifying a motor accident compensation award. The High Court re-assessed loss of dependency based on correct age and income, enhanced loss of consortium for three relatives, and increased funeral expenses by 10%, reducing the total claim slightly from the original Tribunal award.

What did the court decide?

Modified compensation fixed at Rs. 10,84,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition; funeral expenses and loss of estate increased by 10%; loss of dependency recalculated.

The Managing Director Vs Smt S S Sudha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

M.F.A.NO.6343/2018 C/W. M.F.A.NO.8158/2018 (MV-D)

¶7

IN MFA NO.6343/2018:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. S. S. SUDHA W/O LATE PUTTASWAMACHARI @ GANGADHARA, 39 YEARS,

¶10

R/AT YELIUR VILLAGE KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TQ MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶11

AJAY KUMAR S G S/O LATE PUTTASWAMACHARI @ GANGADHARA, R/AT YELIUR VILLAGE KOTHATHI HOBLI,

¶12

MANDYA TQ MANDYA DISTRICT

¶13

VIJAYA KUMAR S G S/O LATE PUTTASWAMACHARI @ GANGADHARA, R/AT YELIUR VILLAGE KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TQ MANDYA DISTRICT … APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C. KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560027. … RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI K. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED19.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.432/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANGAR DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

IN MFA NO.8158/2018:

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD BANGALORE NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC, BANGALORE

¶23

...PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI K NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

SMT. S S SUDHA W/O LATE PUTTASWAMACHARI @ GANGADHARA, 39 YEARS, R/AT YELIUR VILLAGE KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TQ MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶27

AJAY KUMAR S G

¶28

S/O LATE PUTTASWAMACHARI @ GANGADHARA, R/AT YELIUR VILLAGE KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TQ MANDYA DISTRICT

¶29

VIJAYA KUMAR S G S/O LATE PUTTASWAMACHARI @ GANGADHARA, R/AT YELIUR VILLAGE KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TQ MANDYA DISTRICT

¶30

… RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI S RAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶32

¶33

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED19.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.432/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,89,256/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶34

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

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

MFA No.6343/2018 is filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for short), challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.432/2016 dated 19.06.2018 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC & Addl. MACT, Channapattana seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶37

MFA No.8158/2018 is filed by the KSRTC challenging the quantum of compensation.

¶38

The undisputed facts are that on04.10.2016

¶39

at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased-Puttaswamachari @ Gangadhara was standing near Yeliyur Kodi Village to

¶40

¶41

cross the road, at that time, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-11-F-0108 came from Mysore side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Due to the impact, Puttaswamachari @ Gangadhara sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants being the wife and children have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation.

¶42

The Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances and appreciating the material on record, has granted a compensation of Rs.10,89,256/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager one and prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶44

¶45

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - KSRTC submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and therefore, prays for reduction of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶46

7. The Tribunal has granted the compensation

¶47

under various heads as follows:

¶48

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (in.Rs.)
1.	Loss ofdependency	10,19,256.00
2.	Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses	15,000.00
3.	Loss of estate	15,000.00
4.	Loss of consortium	40,000.00
	Total	10,89,256.00

¶49

The Tribunal has considered the monthly

¶50

income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- p.m., is on the lesser side. The deceased being the Tailor, in the absence of proof of income, the notional income of Rs.9,000/- p.m. ought to have taken into consideration

¶51

as recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The Tribunal has considered the age of the

¶52

¶53

deceased as 45 years but as per Ex.P10-Aadhar Card and Ex.R1-Aadhar Card produced by both sides, the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 01.10.1963. The accident was occurred on 04.10.2016. Therefore, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was 53 years old. The Tribunal, based on the postmortem report and inquest mahazer has considered the age of the deceased as 45 years, where the evidences are produced before the Court showing the exact date of birth then that prevails over the general observations of age made in postmortem report and inquest mahazer. Therefore, where the evidence regarding date of birth is available that is to be considered. Accordingly, it is proved in the present case the age of the deceased was 53 years as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '11'. The deceased being the self employed being a tailor, 10% of his income is to be added towards 'loss of future prospects' as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National

¶54

¶55

Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and

¶56

others reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 and 1/3rd is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Therefore,

¶57

the loss of dependency is hereby re-assessed and quantified as under:

¶58

Rs.9,500 + Rs.950 (10% of Rs.9000) = Rs.10,450/-

¶59

Rs.10,450 x 2/3 x 11 x 12 = Rs.9,19,600/-

¶60

Accordingly, a sum of Rs.9,19,600/- is

¶61

awarded under the head 'loss of dependency'.

¶62

The compensation awarded under the head 'transportation of dead body and funeral expenses' is found to be just and proper but 10% is escalated. Hence, a sum of Rs.16,500/- is awarded under the said head.

¶63

There are three legal heirs of the deceased, each one are entitled compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium' as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General

¶64

¶65

Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram and

¶66

Others, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- is awarded under the said head and as per the judgment, for every three years, 10% income is to be raised. Therefore, a sum of Rs.44,000/each is awarded under the head 'loss of consortium'. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- is awarded under the head 'loss of consortium'.

¶67

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of

¶68

Rs,15,000/- under the head 'loss of estate', which is correct but 10% is escalated. Therefore, a sum of Rs.16,500/- is awarded under the head 'loss of estate'.

¶69

Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for the

¶70

following sums:

¶71

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (in.Rs.)
1.	Loss of dependency	9,19,600.00
2.	Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses	16,500.00
3.	Loss of estate	16,500.00
4.	Loss of consortium	1,32,000.00
	Total	10,84,600.00

¶72

¶73

Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are

¶74

entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,84,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

¶75

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

i. The appeals are allowed-in-part .

¶78

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.432/2016 is hereby modified holding the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,84,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

¶79

iii. The claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 16 days in filing the appeal.

¶80

iv. Draw modified award accordingly.

¶81

Sd/JUDGE

¶82

The Managing Director v. Smt S S Sudha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Smt S S Sudha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thimmarayappa Vs United India Ins. Co. Ltd.

Sri Mallappa @ Mallaiah Vs Sri Srikanth K N

Mr Badrudin Saheb Vs Mr Pradeep Kumar M T

Sri Nandishappa Vs the Managing Director

Smt. S S Sudha Vs the Managing Director

Sri. Muneer Ahmed Khan Vs Sri. Mudasir @ Mudasir Khan