Partly allowed

Smt. Rukmini C. M. v. the Manager

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2023MFA/1364/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 173 of MV Act was filed against the Tribunal awarding Rs. 30.24 lakhs. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing loss of dependency compensation to Rs. 40.74 lakhs based on revised income calculations using National Insurance Co. Ltd. principles, and modified the interest clause.

What did the court decide?

Compensation for loss of dependency enhanced to Rs. 40,74,120; interest adjusted to 6% p.a.; Insurance Company directed to deposit within six weeks.

Smt. Rukmini C. M. Vs the Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:44422 MFA No. 1364 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1364 OF 2021 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. RUKMINI C. M. W/O. NAGARAJA. M AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶8

MASTER. KUSHAL. N S/O. NAGARAJA. M AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS

¶9

SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶10

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

ALL ARE R/AT CHOKKAREDDIHALLI VILLAGE KAGATHI POST, CHINTHAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 146.

¶12

AND ALSO RESIDING AT NOOGALBANDE, MULBAGAL TOWN MULBAGAL, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INS. CO. LTD., NO.121, THE ESTATE BUILDING 9TH FLOOR, DICKSON ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:44422 MFA No. 1364 of 2021

¶19

SMT. PAVITHRA. S W/O. B. G. NAGARAJ NO.786/3, NEAR RVM KALYANA MANTAPA SARJAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562 125.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1862/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH19), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

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 04.12.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal & XV Addl. Judge, SCCH-19, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.1862/2019.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44422 MFA No. 1364 of 2021

¶27

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

¶28

briefly stated are that on 08.03.2019 at about 4.45 a.m. the deceased Nagaraja was sleeping on footpath of Panathur main road, near Devarabisanahalli. At that time, a water tanker bearing registration No.KA-41/B-8546 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 at the spot.

¶29

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166

¶30

of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

¶31

On service of summons, the respondent No.1 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 accident was due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It was further pleaded

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:44422 MFA No. 1364 of 2021

¶33

that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶34

The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was placed ex-parte.

¶35

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, 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.P22. On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. 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

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:44422 MFA No. 1364 of 2021

¶37

sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.31,74,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶38

The learned counsel for the claimants has contended that at the time of the accident the deceased was working as a supervisor and his take home salary was Rs.24,250/- per month. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as only Rs.18,000/-. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

¶39

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following contentions:

¶40

(i) Firstly, even though the claimants have produced the salary certificate of the deceased, as on the date of joining, his salary was Rs.18,000/- per month. Therefore,

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:44422 MFA No. 1364 of 2021

¶42

the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

¶43

(ii) Secondly, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND

¶44

OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on

¶45

24.8.2020), the interest granted by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. is on the higher side. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶47

perused the judgment and award and original records.

¶48

It is not in dispute that Nagaraja died in the

¶49

road traffic accident occurred on 08.03.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of the water tanker bearing registration No.KA-41/B-8546 by its driver.

¶50

The specific case of the claimants is that at the time of the accident deceased was working as a supervisor and he was earning Rs.24,250/- per month. To prove the same he has produced salary certificates as Exs. P10 to

¶51

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:44422 MFA No. 1364 of 2021

¶52

P12 and also examined the employer as PW2. It is very clear from the salary certificate that the net salary received by the deceased was Rs.24,250/- after deducting PT, ESI and PF. Therefore, the take home salary of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.24,250/- per month. To the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal has rightly added 40% on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI

¶53

AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.33,950/-, out of which, the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3^rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and therefore, the monthly income comes to Rs.22,634/-. The deceased was aged about 36 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘15’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,74,120/- (Rs.22,6341215) on account of ‘loss of dependency’. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads is just and reasonable.

¶54

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:44422 MFA No. 1364 of 2021

¶55

In view of the above, I pass the following order:

¶56

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶57

(ii) The judgment of the claims Tribunal is modified.

¶58

The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,74,120/under the head 'loss of dependency' in place of Rs.30,24,000/awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads remains unaltered.

¶59

(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest 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, excluding interest for the delayed period of 316 days in filing the appeal on the enhanced compensation.

¶60

(iv) The enhanced compensation carries interest @ 6% p.a.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

¶63

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 56

Smt. Rukmini C. M. v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rukmini C. M. v. the 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

Sri Sunil Kumar C Vs the Manager Hdfc Ergo Insurance Co. Ltd.

Venkatesh E Vs the Managing Director Bmtc

Smt R Ambika Vs the Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Mr Sriram Vs the Manager

Sri G Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Ganapathi Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri S Munegowda Vs M/S Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.