Partly allowed

Smt. Laxmi Venkappa Budihal v. Sri. Manjunath Kenchappa Magi

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023MFA/102393/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a partial miscellaneous first appeal filed by the claimants, enhancing compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court rejected the Insurance Company's appeal and modified the award to include Rs. 2 lakh for loss of consortium.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced from Rs. 24,83,584/- to Rs. 25,92,584/- with specific heads including loss of consortium; insurer to deposit the balance.

Smt. Laxmi Venkappa Budihal Vs Sri. Manjunath… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13042-DB MFA No. 102393 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100326 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102393 OF 2022

¶8

(MV-D)

¶9

C/W

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100326 OF 2021

¶11

IN MFA NO. 102393/2022

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SMT. LAXMI VENKAPPA BUDIHAL AG3: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, NOW NIL,

¶14

KUMAR HANAMANT S/.O VENKAPPA BUDIHAL AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

¶15

Digitally
signed by
SHIVAKUMAR
SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH
HIREMATH Date:
2023.12.05
14:49:05
+0530

¶16

KUMAR NAGARAJ S/O. VENKAPPA BUDIHAL AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE APPELLANT NO.3 IS MINOR, R/BY HIS MINOR GAURDIAN IE., NATURAL MOTHER, APPELLANT NO.1.

¶17

SMT. LAKSHMAVVA W/O. YALLAPPA BUDIHAL AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL ARE R/O. MALLAPUR, P. L. THOTA, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE 587112.

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

SRI. MANJUNATH KENCHAPPA MAGI

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13042-DB MFA No. 102393 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100326 of 2021

¶24

AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. DEVALAPUR, POST: NAINGEALI, TQ. DIST: BELAGAVI-591102.

¶25

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MAHADEV PLAZA, CTS NO.10719, 1357/A, NEAR KOLHAPUR CIRCLE, NEHARU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADV. FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.12.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.452/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-V, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶29

IN MFA NO. 100326/2021

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, REPRESENTED BY MAHADEV PLAZA, CTS NO.10719, 1357/A, NEAR KOLHAPUR CIRCLE, NEHARU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590011. REPTD BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.

¶32

…APPELLANT

¶33

(BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

SMT. LAXMI VENKAPPA BUDIHAL AG3: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. MALLAPUR THOTA, TAL: MUDHOL, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT-587104.

¶36

KUMAR HANAMANT S/O VENKAPPA BUDIHAL

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13042-DB MFA No. 102393 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100326 of 2021

¶39

AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. MALLAPUR THOTA, TAL: MUDHOL, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT-587104.

¶40

KUMAR NAGARAJ S/O. VENKAPPA BUDIHAL AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. MALLAPUR THOTA, TAL: MUDHOL, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT-587104. (SINCE RESPONDENT NO.3 IS MINOR, R/BY HIS MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1, SMT. LAXMI VENKAPPA BUDIHAL).

¶41

SMT. LAKSHMAVVA W/O. YALLAPPA BUDIHAL AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MALLAPUR THOTA, TAL: MUDHOL, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT-587104.

¶42

SHRI. MANJUNATH KENCHAPPA MAGI AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. DEVALAPUR, POST: NAINEGALI, TAL: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590023.

¶43

…RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4, NOTICE TO R5 DISPENSED WITH)

¶45

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.12.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.452/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-V, BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 24,83,584/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT.

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13042-DB MFA No. 102393 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100326 of 2021

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

Both the appeals are filed challenging judgment and award dated 17.12.2020 passed by the IV Additional District Judge and MACT-V, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.452/2020.

¶51

MFA No.102393/2022 is filed by the claimants, who are the legal heirs of deceased Venkappa seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. MFA No.100326/2021 is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶52

Brief facts giving rise to filing of these appeals are that on 24.01.2020, one Sri Venkappa Yallappa Budihal was travelling on the motorcycle bearing No.KA48/H-8602 along with pillion rider from Amingad towards Bagalkote. When the said Venkappa reached near Benal cross within the limits of Ramatal village, the driver of TATA truck bearing No.KAKA-29/B-0489 came from

¶53

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13042-DB MFA No. 102393 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100326 of 2021

¶54

Ramatal village in a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle resulting in causing accident. Due to the impact, the rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and they were shifted to Kerudi Hospital, Bagalkote. On the next day, the said Venkappa succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the legal representatives of the deceased Venkappa filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1994 seeking compensation. It is averred that the claimants have spent substantial amount for the treatment and other expenses. It is further averred that they are the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased Venkappa and sought for compensation.

¶55

The respondents entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed their objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the rider of the motorcycle was negligent in riding the motorcycle which resulted in causing the accident and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶56

- 6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13042-DB MFA No. 102393 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100326 of 2021

¶57

The Tribunal framed issues and recorded the

¶58

evidence of the parties. The appellant/claimant No.1 was examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked documents. The respondents in support of their case have not adduced any oral nor produced documentary evidence. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, available on record has awarded compensation of Rs.24,83,584/- along with 6% interest. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants and the insurance company have filed these appeals.

¶59

Learned counsel Sri Harish S. Maigur appearing for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.m. as the deceased was an agriculturist and the claimants have produced RTC as Ex.P-9 to substantiate the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/p.m. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all heads is on the lower side and seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶60

- 7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13042-DB MFA No. 102393 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100326 of 2021

¶61

Per contra , learned counsel Sri G.N. Raichur

¶62

appearing for the insurance company submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.m. without any evidence on record. The documents produced by the claimants do not indicate the actual income of the deceased. It is further submitted that in the absence of any cogent and acceptable evidence, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased notionally. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has correctly awarded the compensation on other heads and no interference is called for in the appeal filed by the claimants.

¶63

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company, learned counsel for the appellant-claimants, perused the memorandum of appeals and Tribunal records. The point that arises for consideration in these appeals is:

¶64

“Whether the judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference?”

¶65

¶66

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13042-DB MFA No. 102393 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100326 of 2021

¶67

The answer to the above point is in the

¶68

affirmative for the following reasons:

¶69

(a) The parties to the proceedings do not dispute that Sri Venkappa died in a road traffic accident on 24.01.2020. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged 44 years at the time of accident. The insurance company has admitted its liability.

¶70

(b) The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.m. taking into account the material evidence available on record. This Court carefully perused the RTCs at Exs.P-9 to P-12 which clearly demonstrate the nature of the land are irrigated land and crops shown are commercial crops, it is not in dispute that, the deceased was an agriculturist and was growing sugarcane and other commercial crops. To substantiate the income of the deceased, the claimants have produced bank pass book, sugarcane bills, and bills for having

¶71

- 9 -

¶72

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13042-DB MFA No. 102393 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100326 of 2021

¶73

supplied commercial crops to APMC. Taking note of the evidence on record, the Tribunal at para 23 has assigned detailed reasons for arriving at the conclusion and for assessing the income of the deceased. The contention of the insurance company that this Court should assess the income of the deceased as per the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is required to be rejected as this Court and Lok Adalaths generally rely on the notional income chart referred supra only in the cases where

¶74

the evidence is not available to substantiate the claim of income of the victims. In the instant case, the claimants have placed sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to assess the income of the deceased. This Court is conscious of the fact that based on the income accrued from the agriculture and other commercial crops for a particular year cannot be the sole basis for assessing the income of the

¶75

- 10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13042-DB MFA No. 102393 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100326 of 2021

¶76

deceased. However, taking into account the extent of land i.e., held by the deceased i.e. 7 acres, nature of the land being irrigated land, potentially of land and the income arising from the land is taken into account, the assessed income of Rs.15,000/- p.m. cannot be termed as on the higher side. The contention of the insurance company that the income shall be assessed as per the notional income chart referred supra does not merit consideration. In the instant case, the accident is of the year 2020 and as per the chart, notional income for the year 2020 is Rs.13,750/p.m. and there is slight variation from the income assessed by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.15,000/- p.m. and the notional chart referred supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the assessment of income of deceased at Rs. 15,000/- is just and proper.

¶77

11 -

¶78

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13042-DB MFA No. 102393 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100326 of 2021

¶79

(c) The Tribunal considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while assessing the compensation under the head loss of dependency added 25% to the assessed income towards future prospects, applied 14 as multiplier and deducted 1/4^th from the assessed income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Tribunal based on the evidence available on record and findings are neither perverse nor contrary to evidence on record calling for any interference with regard to compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of dependency.

¶80

(d) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads and towards medical bills are unaltered.

¶81

(e) It is settled law that the claimants being wife, children and mother of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal,

¶82

12 -

¶83

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13042-DB MFA No. 102393 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100326 of 2021

¶84

parental & filial consortium as held by the Hon’ble

¶85

Apex Court in the case of Magma General

¶86

Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram¹ .

¶87

Thus, the appellant/claimants would be entitled

¶88

for modified compensation on the following heads:

¶89

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs.23,62,584/-
2.	Loss of estate	Rs.15,000/-
3.	Towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses	Rs.15,000/-
3.	Loss of consortium	Rs.2,00,000/-
	(Rs.40,000/-x4)
	Total	Rs.25,92,584/-

¶90

In view of the aforementioned, we pass the

¶91

following:

¶92

ORDER

¶93

(i) M.F.A.No.100326/2021 filed by the insurance company is dismissed.

¶94

(ii) M.F.A.No.102393/2022 filed by the claimants is allowed in part.

¶95

1 (2018) SCC 130

¶96

13 -

¶97

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13042-DB MFA No. 102393 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 100326 of 2021

¶98

(iii) The judgment and award dated 17.12.2020 passed by the IV Additional District Judge and MACT-V, Belagavi in MVC No.452/2020 is modified and the claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.25,92,584/- as against Rs.24,83,584/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realization.

¶99

(iv) The appellant-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶100