Partly allowed

Smt Narayanamma v. Balakrishna R

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2023MFA/1325/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court审查 the first miscellaneous appeal arising from a motor accident compensation case. While upholding the Tribunal's finding of negligence and notional income assessment, the Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the dependents by applying Supreme Court guidelines on future prospects and personality rights, ordering an additional sum of Rs. 6,05,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part; compensation enhanced by Rs. 6,05,000 with 6% p.a. interest from the date of petition, to be deposited by the insurer within four weeks.

Smt Narayanamma Vs Balakrishna R — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:25326-DB MFA No. 1325/2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1325/2019 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶10

SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶11

KUMARI. SHUBASINI D/O LATE SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by PRABHU KUMARA NAIKA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

KUMARI RADHA D/O LATE SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS

¶14

KUMARI. RANJITHA D/O LATE SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS

¶15

KUMARI. NITHYA D/O LATE SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,

¶16

THE APPELLANTS NO. 4,5 & 6 ARE SINCE MINORS AND ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. NARAYANAMMA APPELLANT NO.2 HEREIN.

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:25326-DB MFA No. 1325/2019

¶18

THE APPELLANT NO. 1 TO 6 ARE R/AT HIREPALYA VILLAGE SANTHEKALLAHALLI POST KAIWARA HOBLI CHINTHAMANI TALUK - 563 125 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI.THEJUS K., ADVOCATE.FOR SRI.SOMANATHA H. ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

BALAKRISHNA R S/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NO.48, 1^ST MAIN 1^ST STAGE, 6^TH PHASE WOC ROAD, MAHAGANAPATHI NAGAR RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010.

¶22

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER VISHRANTHI MELARAM TOWERS NO.2/319, RAJIV GANDHI SALAI (OMR) KARAPAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 097.

¶23

RAMESH BABU S S/O LATE VENKATASUBBAIAH.S AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.33, OPP JANATHA BAZAR SJ COMPLEX RMV 2^ND STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR BANGALORE - 560 094. …RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.SMT.NETHRAVATHI K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.P.B.RAJU ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O/D:27.05.2021)

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:25326-DB MFA No. 1325/2019

¶26

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.42/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHINTAMANI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

"Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants under the impugned award is just?" is the question involved in this case.

¶30

The appellants were the claimants and respondents Nos.1 to 3 were the respondents in MVC No.42/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶31

Claimant No.1 is the mother, claimant No.2 is the wife and claimant Nos. 3 to 6 are the daughters of deceased Srinivas. On 02.07.2015 at 6.00 p.m, when Srinivas was riding motorcycle bearing No.KA-50-E-1936 near Hirepalya bus stop on Bengaluru Highway within the limits of Chintamani Rural District, the driver of Swift Car bearing No.KA-02-MJ-8030 hit

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25326-DB MFA No. 1325/2019

¶33

the said vehicle and caused the accident. In the accident, Srinivas suffered grievous injuries and died at the spot.

¶34

Regarding the accident, one Shivanna filed complaint against the driver of the swift car in Chintamani Rural Police Station. On investigation, Chintamani Rural Police filed charge sheet as per Ex.P3 against respondent No.3 for the offences punishable under Section 279 & 304(A) IPC. At the relevant time, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were registered owner and insurer of the offending car.

¶35

Claimants filed MVC No.42/16 against respondents claiming compensation of Rs.95 lakhs on the ground that accident and consequent death of Srinivas occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of respondent No.3. They further contended that Shrinivas was earning Rs.1,30,000/- per month and they were dependent on his income. Therefore, respondents are liable to pay compensation for the damages suffered by them.

¶36

Respondents Nos.1 to 3 contested the petition denying the occurrence of the accident due to actionable negligence on the part of respondent No.3. They denied the age, occupation,

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:25326-DB MFA No. 1325/2019

¶38

income of the deceased and their liability to pay the compensation.

¶39

The Tribunal on recording the evidence of the parties and on hearing them, by the impugned award held that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of respondent No.3 in driving the Car bearing No.KA-02/MJ8030. The Tribunal, on appreciating the evidence held that there was no concrete evidence to accept the claim of the claimants that deceased was earning Rs.1,30,000/- per month, notionally assessed his income at Rs.12,000/- per month, deducted 1/4^th for his personal expenses, considered his age at 45 years, applied multiplier `14' and awarded compensation of Rs.15,12,000/- on the head of loss of dependency. In all the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- on different

¶40

heads as per the table below:

¶41

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount in Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	15,12,000/-
2.	Loss of Estate	15,000/-
3.	Funeral Expenses	15,000/-
	TOTAL	15,82,000/-

¶42

Sri Thejus K. for Sri Somanath H., learned counsel for

¶43

the claimants/appellants referring to Exs.P9 to P14 vehemently

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25326-DB MFA No. 1325/2019

¶45

submits that claimants had produced them to show that the deceased was an active agriculturist/Sericulturist and was doing Milk vending business. The Tribunal unjustifiably rejected those documents and assessed income at Rs.12,000/- per month. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in National Insurance Co. vs. Pranay Sethi and ors¹ , the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards future prospects over and above the income of the deceased. The compensation awarded on the other heads is on the lower side.

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Sri P.B.Raju submits that the documents produced by the claimants in proof of alleged income of the deceased were all unreliable documents. They were not proved by examining the author of the same. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly rejected those documents and assessed the income notionally and awarded the just compensation.

¶47

Analysis

¶48

Challenging the findings of the Tribunal regarding

¶49

rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.3 in causing the accident and notional income of the deceased,

¶50

1 2017 ACJ 2700 (sc)

¶51

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:25326-DB MFA No. 1325/2019

¶52

respondents have not preferred any appeal. Therefore, those findings have attained finality. Though appellant has stated that deceased was earning Rs.1,30,000/- per month, no income tax returns were submitted. Ex.P9 the RTC extract shows that they were standing in the name of Chikkamuniyappa for the period from 2017-18 onwards. In those documents, name of the deceased was not shown as cultivator. They were all dry lands. Except PW.1 i.e. second claimant, none else were examined to show that the deceased was doing agriculture/sericulture and milk vending and earning Rs.1,30,000/- per month.

¶53

So far as Ex.P10-sericulture book and Ex.P12 Cocoon Market receipts, Ex.P13 & P14 were receipts and certificates allegedly issued by Milk Producers Co-operative Society, Hirepalya. The authors of those documents were not examined, though genuineness of the same was disputed. Thereby, those documents were not proved. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income of deceased from the alleged source of agriculture/sericulture and milk vending business was not proved.

¶54

Having regard to the age of the deceased, the prevalent wage rates and cost of living during the relevant

¶55

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:25326-DB MFA No. 1325/2019

¶56

period, the notional income of Rs.12,000/- considered by the Tribunal is just and fair one. As per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case, referred to supra the Tribunal ought to have super-added 25% to the income of the deceased by way of future prospects. 25% of Rs.12,000/would be Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, monthly notional income would be (12000+3000) Rs.15,000/-. The deceased had six dependents. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors vs.Delhi Transport Corporation and another² under such circumstances, 1/4th of income of deceased has to be deducted for his personal expenses. Therefore, 3/4^th of his income would be contribution to his family maintenance which come to Rs.11,250/-. The multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased would be `14'. Thus the loss of dependency would be Rs. 18,90,000 /- (Rs.11,250 x 12 x 14).

¶57

Claimants being the mother, wife and children are entitled to parental, spousal and filial consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each with escalation at 10% as held by Hon'ble

¶58

2 2009(6)SCC 121

¶59

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:25326-DB MFA No. 1325/2019

¶60

Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others³ cases, at which comes toRs.44,000/-x 6 = 2,64,000/-. Further, as per the judgment in Pranay Sethi's case, referred to supra a sum of Rs.15,000/- on the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses with escalation at 10% has to be awarded which comes to(16,500+16,500)=33,000/-. Therefore, just compensation payable to the claimants is as

¶61

follows:

¶62

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount in Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	18,90,000/-
2.	Loss of Estate	2,64,000/-
3.	Funeral Expenses	33,000/-
	TOTAL	21,87,000/-
	(-) The compensation Awarded by Tribunal in MVC No.42/16	15,82,000/-
	TOTAL	6,05,000/-

¶63

The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in-part. Hence, the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) The appeal is partly allowed.

¶66

3 1(2017) 16 SCC 680

¶67

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:25326-DB MFA No. 1325/2019

¶68

(ii) The impugned award is modified as follows: The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6,05,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶69

(iii) The second respondent being the Insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶70

(a) Out of the compensation awarded, 10% shall be released to claimant No.1 remaining amount shall be released to claimant No.2 digitally on furnishing the relevant documents.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

Sk/-

Smt Narayanamma v. Balakrishna R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Narayanamma v. Balakrishna R

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

Chennajamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Revamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt.Nagarathnamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer Kiadb

K R Paramesha Vs the Special Land Acqusition Officer

The Divisional Manager Vs N. Kumaresan

M/S Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Vs Sundar M @ Sundar Muthu