Partly allowed

T L Indramma v. Dhanu Singh

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2022MFA/9938/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous file appeal challenged a motor accident compensation award of Rs.5,72,000. The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.8,36,800 by recalculating loss of dependency including 40% for self-employment, awarding Rs.80,000 for loss of consortium, and restoring interest claims pending a restoration.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.8,36,800; additional Rs.2,64,800 awarded with interest from petition date minus interregnum period.

T L Indramma Vs Dhanu Singh — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

M.F.A.NO.9938/2010 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

T.L. INDRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, W/O LATE B.T. MAHANTESHAPPA,

¶9

B. LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O B.T. THIPPESHAPPA

¶10

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF HANAGAVADI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DIST.

¶11

… APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY KUM. SHRUTHI S.P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M. VINAY KEERTHY)

¶13

AND:

¶14

DHANU SINGH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O BHAVAN SINGH, (DRIVER OF KSTRC BUS BEARING REGN. NO.KA-28/F-1169) ATHANI DEPOT, CHIKKODI DIVISION.

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKSRTC, BIJAPUR DIVISION, BIJAPUR.

¶16

¶17

3. THE DEPOT MANAGER, NWKSRTC, ATHANI DEPOT. ... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH, SRI F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶19

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.203/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND MACT, HARIHAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENCHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the appellants-claimants, challenging the judgment and award dated 02.03.2010, passed in MVC No.203/2007, on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) And MACT at Harihara, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶23

Brief facts:

¶24

That on 15.05.2007, at about 8.40 a.m., the deceased Mahanthesh husband of the first appellant was going along with one Ganesh in motorbike bearing

¶25

¶26

registration No.KA 17/V 1543 to Harihar City and when they reached in front of Taralabalu Kalyana Mantapa on Shivamogga-Harihar road, respondent No.1 being the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA 28/F 1169 came with high speed as well as in rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed to the motor bike, as a result, the rider Ganesh as well as pillion rider Mahantesh sustained grievous injuries and Mahantesh succumbed to injuries in the hospital on the same day at around 12.00 noon.

¶27

Hence, the claimants i.e., wife, mother of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition in part, and awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,72,000/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Tribunal held respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶28

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. Therefore, prays for enhancement of compensation by allowing the appeal.

¶30

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 vehemently, contended that the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding compensation and what is awarded by the Tribunal is perfectly justifiable and correct one, which needs no interference. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶31

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶32

The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,12,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’ by taking into consideration the notional income as Rs.4,000/per month. The deceased was aged 35 years old and the appropriate multiplier applied ‘16’, which is correct one. Further, the Tribunal deducted 1/3^rd amount towards

¶33

¶34

personal expenses and accordingly, granted compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’.

¶35

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation be awarded under the head ‘loss of future prospects in life’ as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. The Tribunal has taken notional income at Rs.4,000/per month, considering the year of the accident as 2007. The multiplier taken is ‘16’ as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma & Others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , since the appellant was aged 35 years at the time of accident, which is also justified. The deduction of 1/3^rd made towards ‘personal expenses’ is also correct, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi’s stated above. The only point to be considered is extent of compensation under the head ‘loss of future prospects in life’.

¶36

¶37

The deceased was an agriculturist and was aged 35 years old at the time of the accident. Hence, as he was a self-employed person, 40% is to be added to the income of the deceased. Therefore, the ‘loss of dependency including future prospects in life’ is recalculated and quantified as follows:

¶38

Rs.4,000 + Rs.1,600 (40%) x 2/3 x 16 x 12 = Rs.7,16,800/-

¶39

Further, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards ‘ loss of consortium ’. As per principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , Rs.40,000/- each, is to be awarded. Therefore, a sum of Rs.40,000 x 2 = Rs.80,000/- is awarded under the head ‘Loss Of Consortium’.

¶40

Further, the amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘Funeral And Obsequies Ceremony & Transportation Charges’ and a sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’ is appropriate and does not need interference.

¶41

¶42

Therefore, the appellants are entitled for compensation under various heads as follows:

¶43

1	Loss of dependency ( Rs.4,000 x 1600 (40%) x 2/3 x 16 x 12)	:	Rs.	7,16,800/-
2	Loss of Consortium (Rs.40,000 x 2)	:	Rs.	80,000/-
3	Loss of Estate	:	Rs.	20,000/-
4	Funeral And Obsequies Ceremony & Transportation Charges’	:	Rs.	20,000/-
	Total	:	Rs.	8,36,800/-

¶44

The appellants-claimants are entitled for a

¶45

total enhanced compensation of Rs.8,36,800/- as against Rs.5,72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.2,64,800/- (Rs.8,36,800 - Rs.5,72,000), along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶46

13. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶49

ii. The judgment and award dated 02.03.2010, passed in MVC No.203/2007, on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) & MACT, at Harihara is modified to the above extent.

¶50

¶51

iii. The appellants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.2,64,800/- (Rs.8,36,800 - Rs.5,72,000), along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶52

iv. The appeal was dismissed for default on 07.06.2012, and restored vide order dated 17.06.2021. Therefore, for the interregnum period of 2794 days, the appellants are not entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation amount.

¶53

v. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶54

vi. Draw award accordingly.

¶55

vii. No order as to costs.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

T L Indramma v. Dhanu Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T L Indramma v. Dhanu Singh

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

The Sericultural Extension Officer Vs Sri D Ramachandrappa

Namadev S/O Bakkappa Kamble Vs the State through

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Sundara

Smt Sharavana Prabha Vs the Manager

Mr Siddeshi Vs Mr Mohammed Saifulla

Manjunath @ Manjegowda Vs Yuvaraja v