Partly allowed

H.Vanajakshi v. M.B.Manjunatha

Karnataka HC20 Oct 2022MFA/8195/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the appeal, enhancing motor accident compensation for death from 23.95 lakh to 34.22 lakh based on reassessed income, interest rate correction, and consortium awards for four dependents.

What did the court decide?

The judgment modified the Tribunal award, directing the insurance company to deposit compensation of Rs.34,22,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

H.Vanajakshi Vs M.B.Manjunatha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.8195 OF 2019(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . H.VANAJAKSHI W/O LATE H B MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

¶9

2 . MALE BABY (UN NAMED) S/O LATE H B MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS MINOR REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT.

¶10

3 . H S BASAVARAJU S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶11

4 . DYAMAKKA W/O H S BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT E29, 5TH MAIN B CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGARA NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU NORTH NOW RESIDING AT, HUNASEKATTE, BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK 572137.

¶12

...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K., ADV.)

¶13

¶14

AND:

¶15

1 . M.B.MANJUNATHA S/O BHEEMANNA AGED 29 YEARS RESIDING AT MADALUR (POST) SIRA TALUK 572137.

¶16

2 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BY ITS MANAGER 1ST FLOOR, RAJA COMPLEX DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD SIRA 572137.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT.GEETHA RAJ, ADV. FOR R2: NOTIVE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 02.03.2022)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.07.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.389/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., AND ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira in MVC No.389/2018.

¶24

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 11.02.2018 at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased - H. B. Manjunath was riding the new bike bearing Engine No.HA.11.ENHGG and Chassis No.MBLHAR 206 HGG 19547 near Manangi Village, NH-4, at that time, another bike bearing Registration No.KA.06.EJ.2661 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bike. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶25

¶26

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section

¶27

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

¶28

On service of summons, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have appeared through counsel and only respondent No.2 has filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R5. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider, 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.23,95,000/- along with interest at

¶33

the rate of 7% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of the accident and he was working as a Technician in Kaizen Digital Cable Service Ltd., Bengaluru and in addition, he was also having agriculture property and totally he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. To that effect, they have produced Salary Certificate as per Ex.P12 and they have produced Identity Card of the deceased issued by Kaizen Digital Cable Service Ltd. as Ex.P14 and they have also examined co-employee as PW-2. The Tribunal without considering this aspect of the matter has erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.12,000/-.

¶37

Secondly, since there are four dependents, the Tribunal instead of deducing 1/4^th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, has wrongly deducted 1/3^rd .

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:

¶42

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased working at Kaizen Digital Cable Service Ltd., was earning Rs.50,000/- per month and he has produced salary certificate and examined co-employee of the deceased, they have not produced any Bank Statement to show that the deceased was drawing a

¶43

¶44

salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

¶45

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

¶46

Thirdly, since the claimant No.3, father of the deceased has his own income for his livelihood and he has not depending upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards personal

¶47

expenses.

¶48

Fourthly, 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.

¶49

Lastly, in view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND

¶50

¶51

OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the claimants are entitled for 6% interest

¶52

but the Tribunal has granted 7% interest is on the higher side. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶53

Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶54

and perused the records.

¶55

It is not in dispute that H. B. Manjunatha

¶56

died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶57

The claimants claim that the deceased was working as a Technician in Kaizen Digital Cable Service Ltd., Bengaluru and in addition, he was also having agriculture property and totally he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. To that effect, they have

¶58

¶59

produced Salary Certificate as per Ex.P12 and they have produced Identity Card of the deceased issued by Kaizen Digital Cable Service Ltd. as Ex.P14 and they have also examined co-employee as PW-2. Considering the evidence of the parties and material available on record, I am of the opinion that the monthly income of the deceased can be assessed as Rs.15,000/-.

¶60

The Tribunal has rightly added 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects. Therefore, 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 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157] . Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.21,000/-. Since there are four dependents, PW-1 in her evidence, has categorically stated that the claimants

¶61

¶62

are entirely depending upon the income of the deceased. In the cross-examination of PW-1, nothing worthwhile has been elicited by the respondents. Therefore, it is appropriate to deduct 1/4^th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.15,750/-. The deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘17’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.32,13,000/- (Rs.15,7501217) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶63

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’.

¶64

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is

¶65

¶66

entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium', claimant No.2, son of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’ and claimant Nos.3 and 4, parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/each under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’ .

¶67

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the

¶68

following compensation:

¶69

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	32,13,000
Funeral expenses	16,500
Loss of estate	16,500
Loss of spousal consortium	44,000
Loss of Parental consortium	44,000
Loss of Filial consortium Total	88,000 34,22,000

¶70

In the result, the appeal is allowed in

¶71

part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶72

¶73

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.34,22,000/- as against Rs.23,95,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶74

In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’, the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶75

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 7% p.a. (the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum) 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.

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

¶77

HA/-

H.Vanajakshi v. M.B.Manjunatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Vanajakshi v. M.B.Manjunatha

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 Krupashankar Vs Sri Yogesh H R

M Chethan Vs the Manager

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajanna S/O Siddappa

Suresh Dhanashetti Vs M/S Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd

Mr Vinod K Vs Mr Kumar C M

Sri Sharanabasappa Vs Bhavya N