Partly allowed

Sri Raja v. Sri Rajakumar

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2022MFA/921/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a partial appeal filed by a motorcycle owner against a Motor Vehicles Tribunal awarding compensation for a fatal accident. The court dismissed the challenge to liability due to lack of insurance but modified the compensation quantum, reducing the loss of dependency amount based on the deceased's pension and increasing the loss of love and affection amount to Rs. 2,00,000 for fiv

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs. 9,45,560/- to Rs. 7,56,980/-; the order marked as allowed in part with costs made easy.

Sri Raja Vs Sri Rajakumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

M.F.A.No.921/2018 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI RAJA S/O PUTTAPPA, AGED 38 YEARS R/AT: No.78, BARADANAPURA JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU - 570 008.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI BHANU PRAKASH H V, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . SRI RAJAKUMAR

¶13

S/O LATE ANNA SAMACHARI B N AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶14

2 . SMT. RUKMANAMMA B A D/O LATE ANNA SAMACHARI B N AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶15

3 . SRI PRABHUSWAMY B A S/O LATE ANNA SAMACHARI B N AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶16

¶17

4 . SRI BALAKRISHNA B A S/O LATE ANNA SAMACHARI B N AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶18

5 . SRI CHANDRASHEKAR B A S/O LATE ANNA SAMACHARI B N AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶19

ALL ARE RESIDING AT: KAMALA NILAYA GIRIDARSHINI EXTENSION ALANAHALLI. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: C/O PRABHUDAS, P G PALYA KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 440.

¶20

6 . THE HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 2ND FLOOR, MYSORE TRADE CENTER OPP. TO: K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND B N ROAD, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI SANATH KUMARA K M, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5 SRI H S LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.264/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KOLLEGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.9,45,560/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION OF THE AWARD AMOUNT.

¶24

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The appeal is filed by the appellant-owner of the

¶28

motorcycle challenging the liability to pay compensation to the respondents-claimants and also on the quantum of compensation.

¶29

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶30

On 04.03.2015, at about 10.30 a.m. on

¶31

Mysuru-T.Narasipura main road, near Allanahalli bus stop, the father of the respondent No.1-claimant i.e. deceased Annasamachar was standing in front of bus stand for crossing the road. At that time, one motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-09-EN-4196 being ridden by its rider with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed and caused accident and the deceased succumbed to injuries. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellants-claimants under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation.

¶32

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant-owner of

¶34

the motorcycle submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and prays to reduce the compensation.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submitted that the

¶36

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶37

5. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

¶38

under various heads are as follows:

¶39

Loss of dependency	Rs. 7,90,560/-
Funeral and obsequies	Rs. 25,000/-
Transportation of dead	Rs. 5,000/-
body
Loss of love and affection	Rs. 1,25,000/-
TOTAL	Rs. 9,45,560/-

¶40

The Tribunal had held that the appellant-

¶41

owner of the motorbike is responsible for payment of

¶42

¶43

compensation since there is no contract of insurance between the appellant-owner and respondent No.6insurance company. The accident was caused on 04.03.2015 at morning 10.30 a.m. The appellant has insured the vehicle with respondent No.6 by entering into contract on 05.03.2015. Therefore, an official on behalf of respondent No.6 -insurance company has examined as RW.1 and stated that as on the date of accident, there was no insurance coverage to the offending motorbike. The appellant-owner of the motorcycle in his cross examination has admitted that the validity of the insurance policy was from 05.3.2015 till 04.03.2016. The accident was caused on 04.03.2015. Therefore, on the next day of the accident, the appellant-owner of the motorcycle has purchased insurance policy and thus it is discussed by the Tribunal and held that respondent No.6-insurance company is not liable to pay compensation but the

¶44

¶45

appellant-owner of the motorcycle is liable to pay compensation.

¶46

As discussed above, it is proved that there was no insurance policy as on the date of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the appellant-owner of the motorcycle is liable to pay compensation. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is not disturbed. Accordingly, the appeal insofar as questioning the liability is concerned, is liable to be dismissed .

¶47

QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION :

¶48

The age of the deceased was 80 years and he is a retired government teacher getting pension of Rs.17,567/- . The appellants-claimants are major children of the deceased. In strict sense, it cannot be said that the appellants-claimants are depending on income of the deceased. The Tribunal had deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the

¶49

¶50

deceased and granted compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' but this deduction of income towards personal expenses is not correct for the reason that the appellants-claimants are not dependants on the income of the deceased. Therefore, the compensation has to be awarded under the head 'loss of estate' by deducting 1/2 of the income. In this regard, the quantum of compensation is liable to be modified.

¶51

It is proved that the deceased was

¶52

receiving pension of Rs.17,567/- and 1/2 of the said amount is Rs.8,783/- and the appropriate multiplier is 5 considering the age of the deceased. Therefore, 'loss of dependency' is hereby reassessed and quantified as follows:

¶53

17,567/- x 1/2x5x12 = Rs.5,26,980/-.

¶54

Accordingly, Rs.5,26,980/- is awarded under the head 'loss of dependency'.

¶55

¶56

The compensation awarded under the head 'transportation of dead body' are found to be correct and the same is kept intact.

¶57

There are five dependants and as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Nanu Ram¹ , each of the legal dependent of the deceased are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium'. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000 per person x 5) is awarded towards 'loss of consortium'. On other conventional head, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is correct as discussed above and there is no ground for interference. Accordingly, the said head is kept in tact.

¶58

Thus in all, this Court determines the compensation under various heads as follows:

¶59

1 reported in 2018 SCC online SC 1546

¶60

¶61

Loss of dependency	Rs. 5,26,980/-
Funeral and obsequies	Rs. 25,000/-
Transportation of dead	Rs. 5,000/-
body
Loss of love and affection	Rs. 2,00,000/-
TOTAL	Rs. 7,56,980/-

¶62

Therefore, the respondents-claimants are

¶63

entitled to reduced compensation of Rs.7,56,980/- along with 6% interest p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶64

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i. The appeal is allowed in part .

¶67

ii. The judgment and award dated 18.04.2017 passed in MVC No.264/2015 by the Court of Small Causes and Motor Vehicles and Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-16) is hereby modified.

¶68

iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy

¶69

¶70

of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶71

iv. The amount in deposit should be transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶72

v. Draw award accordingly.

¶73

vi. Costs made easy.

¶74

In view of disposal of main appeal, I.A.No.2/2018 does not survive for consideration.

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

SSD

Sri Raja v. Sri Rajakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Raja v. Sri Rajakumar

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 Rathi K G Vs Sri Nithish

Sri. Muthuraj Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Ningamma Vs M/S United Ins Co. Ltd.

Harish Shetty Vs Ananda Devadiga

The Manager Vs Sri Ramesh

Sri. Ramesh Vs Sri. Rajesh