Partly allowed

Ananda v. Kiran R

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2023MFA/1365/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge enhanced compensation awarded to claimants in motor vehicle accident claim. Court assessed notional income, denied loss of dependency due to adult children, but granted allowances for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of parental consortium.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.7,28,00/- to be deposited by Insurance Company along with interest at 6% p.a.

Ananda Vs Kiran R — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42270 MFA No. 1365 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1365 OF 2021 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ANANDA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O KENDATTI VILLAGE KOLAR TALUK.

¶8

SURESH K N S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O KENDATTI VILLAGE VOKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK.

¶9

RAMESH N

¶10

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT 3RD CROSS NEW POST OFFICE ROAD ARAKESHWARA NAGARA MANDYA.

¶12

MANJUNATHA N S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT BAHUBALI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING SHRAVANA BELAGOLA,HASSAN.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SMT. SWATI G HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:42270 MFA No. 1365 of 2021

¶16

AND:

¶17

KIRAN R

¶18

S/O D.D.RANGEGOWDA R/AT NO.S 1317 4TH CROSS 2ND STAGE, BHARATHNAGAR BENGALURU-560 091.

¶19

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., #1 AND 2, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS SIDDAPURA, OPP 9TH CROSS WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560 027 REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶20

GIRIJAMMA N W/O RAJANNA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT KESHAVANAGARA KHADRIPURA, KOLAR CITY, KOLAR.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.M.S.SRIRAM., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 & R3 ARE D/W V/O DATED:31.03.2023)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 19.09.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 157/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT AND III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42270 MFA No. 1365 of 2021

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

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 and award dated 19.09.2019 passed by the MACT and III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar in MVC No.157/2016.

¶28

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 01.05.2016 at about 01.00 p.m., the deceased Lakshmamma while standing near Kendati Gate, the rider of the Royal Enfield Motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-JF-3691 from the Bengaluru to Chennai side came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Lakshmamma. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42270 MFA No. 1365 of 2021

¶30

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of

¶31

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

¶32

On service of summons, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and only respondent No.2 alone filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

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 got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of respondents, neither examined any witness nor exhibited

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42270 MFA No. 1365 of 2021

¶35

any document. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider, 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.1,21,700/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company 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

a) Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 60 years at the time of the accident and she was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agricultural work and milk vending. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.7,000/-.

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:42270 MFA No. 1365 of 2021

¶39

b) Secondly, the claimants are major sons and respondent No.3 is married daughter of the deceased and they are depending upon the income of the deceased. But the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation towards loss of dependency.

¶40

c) Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V-

¶41

NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782] , each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶42

d) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

¶43

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

¶44

a) Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the same is

¶45

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:42270 MFA No. 1365 of 2021

¶46

not established by the claimants by producing documents.

¶47

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

¶48

b) Secondly, at the time of the accident, the deceased

¶49

was aged about 60 years. The claimants are major sons and respondent No.3 is the married daughter and they are

¶50

not depending upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation for loss of dependency.

¶51

c) 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. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶52

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶53

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:42270 MFA No. 1365 of 2021

¶54

It is not in dispute that Lakshmamma died in the

¶55

road traffic accident occurred on 01.05.2016 due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.

¶56

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 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.

¶57

The claimants and respondent No.3 are the major sons and married daughter of the deceased and they are not depending upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that they are not entitled for the compensation under the head of ‘loss of dependency’. However, since the claimants are major sons and respondent No.3 is the married daughter of the

¶58

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:42270 MFA No. 1365 of 2021

¶59

deceased, they are entitled for the compensation under the head of ‘loss of estate’. The Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.7318/2016 disposed of on 23.10.2020 has calculated the 'loss of estate' by taking 50% of the income of the deceased. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,750/-. The deceased was aged about 60 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘9’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.5,13,000/(Rs.4,750129) on account of ‘loss of estate’.

¶60

In addition, the claimants and respondent No.3 are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’.

¶61

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimants, sons of the deceased and respondent No.3, daughter of the deceased, are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’.

¶62

10 -

¶63

NC: 2023:KHC:42270 MFA No. 1365 of 2021

¶64

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

¶65

compensation:

¶66

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	5,13,000
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of Parental consortium	2,00,000
Total	7,28,000

¶67

In the result, I pass the following order:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶70

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶71

c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

¶72

Rs.7,28,000/- as against Rs.1,21,700/- awarded by the

¶73

Tribunal.

¶74

NC: 2023:KHC:42270 MFA No. 1365 of 2021

¶75

11 -

¶76

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

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

¶78

¶79

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 39

Ananda v. Kiran R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda v. Kiran 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

Sri B M Gangadhar Vs Sri Raju

Mr Nagarjun Kumar v Vs M/S New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Shankara Poojary Vs Harish Devadiga

Sri. Y.C. Shivappa Vs Sri. Ramesh

Sri Nagaraju Vs Devaraju

Narasimhanayaka Vs J K Hayath Khan