Partly allowed

Smt Shriveni v. Divisional Manager

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2022MFA/9249/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the appeal partly, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs.12.07 lakhs to Rs.21.05 lakhs for the death of a deceased caused by a KSRTC bus accident, based on notional income calculations and consortium awards. Interest rates were also adjusted.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of compensation to Rs.21,05,200; interest fixed at 6% p.a. on enhanced compensation from date of filing.

Smt Shriveni Vs Divisional Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.9249 OF 2018 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Smt. Shriveni, W/o Late Shivakumar, Aged about 24 years,

¶9

Unnamed Baby, D/o Late Shivakumar, Aged about 2 years 1 Month

¶10

Since minor represented by his Natural Guardian mother 1^st appellant.

¶11

Smt. Kalamani, W/o Palani, Aged about 49 years,

¶12

Sri. Palani, S/o Magali, Aged 49 years,

¶13

All are residing at Ambedkar Nagar, Uthandiyoor Village and Post, Sathyamangala Taluk, Erode District, Tamil Nadu State – 638 001.

¶14

… Appellants

¶15

(By Smt.K.Suma., Advocate for Sri. Padmanabha Kedilaya.V., Advocate)

¶16

¶17

AND:

¶18

Divisional Manager, KSRTC Transport Corporation, Puttur Division, Puttur – 574 201.

¶19

... Respondent

¶20

(By Sri.Ashok.N.Nayak, Advocate)

¶21

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 01.02.2018 passed in MVC No.113/2016, on the file of the Principal District Judge & MACT, Kodagu - Madikeri, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶22

This MFA, coming on for Hearing, this day, this Court, delivered the following:

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

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 01.02.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kodagu at Madikeri in MVC No.113/2016.

¶25

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 24.06.2016 at about 3.45 p.m. the deceased Shivakumar and Raju were

¶26

¶27

returning to their house on B.M.road near Kedakal Village. At that time, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-19/F-2945 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶28

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

¶29

On service of summons, the respondent appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It was further

¶30

¶31

pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶33

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 another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited 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.12,07,000/- along with interest at the rate of

¶34

¶35

9% p.a. and directed the KSRTC to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶36

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

¶37

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.500/- per day by working as a coolie. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as only Rs.8,000/-.

¶38

Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in 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 prospects’ should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The same may be considered.

¶39

¶40

Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble

¶41

Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANU RAM reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of

¶42

‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶43

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

¶44

On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶45

the Corporation has raised the following countercontentions:

¶46

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.500/- per day, the same is not established by the claimants by producing documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

¶47

¶48

Secondly, since the claimants have not

¶49

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

¶50

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.

¶51

Fourthly, in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS vs.

¶52

VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS ( MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶53

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award and the original records.

¶54

¶55

It is not in dispute that deceased

¶56

Shivakumar died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶57

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.500/- per day. 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 2016, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.9,500/p.m. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added

¶58

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.13,300/-. Since there are 4 dependents, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4^th of

¶59

¶60

the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount, i.e., Rs.9,975/- has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘16’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.19,15,200/- (Rs.9,9751216) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶61

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’. Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

¶62

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL

¶63

INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant No.2, daughter of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-

¶64

¶65

under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’ and claimant Nos.3 and 4, parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’ .

¶66

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the

¶67

following compensation:

¶68

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	19,15,200
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of spousal consortium	40,000
Loss of Parental consortium	40,000
Loss of Filial consortium	80,000
Total	21,05,200

¶69

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶70

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.21,05,200/ - as against Rs.12,07,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶71

¶72

In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in JOYEETA BOSE (supra) the enhanced compensation carries interest @ 6% p.a.

¶73

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 9% p.a. (interest @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation) 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.

¶74

In view of the order dated 28.01.2022 passed by this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 183 days in filing the appeal on the enhanced compensation.

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

Cm/-

Smt Shriveni v. Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shriveni v. Divisional Manager

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Mrs. Rajashri

C Kullayamma Vs the Managing Director

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mr Mahesh

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri. Shivakumar. v. K.

The Division Manager Bmtc Vs Annayappa

The Managing Director Vs Smt B R Sowmya