Partly allowed

Rangamma v. Doddaiah Y

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2022MFA/854/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench allowed the Motor Vehicle Appeal in part, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The Court recalculated loss of dependency based on notional income, awarded specific amounts for consortium losses to the wife and children, and reduced the interest rate to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.22,65,060/- with interest at 6% p.a. directed to be deposited by the Insurance Company.

Rangamma Vs Doddaiah Y — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

1 - MFA No. 854 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2020 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RANGAMMA W/O LATE LAKSHMANA AGED 40 YEARS.

¶8

CHETANA L

¶9

S/O LATE LAKSHMANA R/AT BHOTESHWARA NAGARA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

¶10

SANTOSHA S/O LATE LAKSHMANA MINOR REP HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT ALL ARE R/AT BHOTESHWARE NAGARA MEKEREHALLI POST SIRA TALUK-572 137.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

Digitally signed (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K.,ADVOCATE) by C MALATHI Location: High AND: Court of Karnataka

¶13

DODDAIAH Y S/O LATE CHILLAPPA AGED 42 YEARS SIRA TOWN-572 137.

¶14

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

¶15

¶16

MFA No. 854 of 2020

¶17

BY ITS MANAGER JAYADEVA COMPLEX B.H.ROAD,TUMKUR-572 01.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.C.SHANKARA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 29.11.2022)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 20.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 590/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

¶24

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira in MVC No.590/2018.

¶25

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶26

briefly stated are that on 01.05.2018 at about 07.05 p.m., the deceased Lakshmana was proceeding by walk at the

¶27

¶28

MFA No. 854 of 2020

¶29

left side of the Bhuthesh Nagar Bus stand, on Bukkapattana - Sira Road. By that time, the driver of the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-9161 came in a rash and negligent manner, hit the pedestrian. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶30

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

¶31

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. 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.

¶32

¶33

MFA No. 854 of 2020

¶34

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

¶35

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 got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited a document namely Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter 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.14,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount

¶36

¶37

MFA No. 854 of 2020

¶38

along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶39

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

¶40

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident 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.9,000/-.

¶41

Secondly, at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 40 years. In view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL

¶42

INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS

¶43

[AIR 2017 SC 5157], the Tribunal instead of adding 40% of the income of the deceased on account of future prospects, has added only 25%.

¶44

Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.

¶45

¶46

MFA No. 854 of 2020

¶47

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’.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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 documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

¶51

¶52

MFA No. 854 of 2020

¶53

Secondly, the Tribunal after considering the age and avocation of the deceased has rightly granted the compensation under the head of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶54

Thirdly, 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.

¶55

Lastly, in view of judgment of the Division Bench of

¶56

this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS

¶57

vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 and

¶58

connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the claimants are entitled for 6% interest but the Tribunal has granted 7% interest is on the higher side. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶59

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

¶60

¶61

MFA No. 854 of 2020

¶62

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

¶63

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- 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 2018, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m.

¶64

The deceased was aged 40 years as on the date of the accident. 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.17,500/-. Since there are

¶65

¶66

MFA No. 854 of 2020

¶67

three dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.11,667/. The deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘15’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.21,00,060/- (Rs.11,6671215) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶68

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’.

¶69

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 entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium', claimant Nos.2 and 3, children of the

¶70

10 -

¶71

MFA No. 854 of 2020

¶72

deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/-

¶73

each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’.

¶74

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

¶75

compensation:

¶76

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	21,00,060
Funeral expenses	16,500
Loss of estate	16,500
Loss of spousal consortium	44,000
Loss of Parental consortium	88,000
Total	22,65,060

¶77

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part .

¶78

The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶79

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

¶80

Rs.22,65,060/- as against Rs.14,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶81

11 -

¶82

MFA No. 854 of 2020

¶83

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.

¶84

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit enhanced 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.

¶85

Sd/JUDGE

¶86

¶87

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Rangamma v. Doddaiah Y

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangamma v. Doddaiah Y

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. Onteddu Eswari Vs Mr. Shivakumar

Smt. Zarina Vs the Divisional Manager

Shakel Ahamed Vs the Divisional Manager

Sri Naveen Alwyn Lasrado Vs the Branch Manager

Heena Kousar Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Kumar Vs P Mohan