Partly allowed

Devamma v. the Manager

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2023MFA/1450/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the first appeal partly, modifying the Claims Tribunal's award. The Court enhanced the compensation for the death of the deceased from Rs.11,18,000 to Rs.17,50,000 based on notional income calculations. The interest rate was reduced from 9% to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal modified. Total compensation awarded at Rs.17,50,000. Interest fixed at 6% p.a.

Devamma Vs the Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43345 MFA No. 1450 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1450 OF 2021 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DEVAMMA

¶8

W/O GINISWAMY

¶9

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶10

KUMARA S/O GINISWAMY

¶11

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶12

RUKMINI

¶13

D/O GINISWAMY

¶14

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT CHINDEGOWDA NAKOPPALU VILLAGE ARAKERE HOBLI SRIRANGAPATANA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571438.

¶16

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

THE MANAGER

¶20

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., BALLAL CIRCLE

¶21

MYSURU DISTRICT-570004.

¶22

HONNAGANGADHARA S/O SRIKANTASWAMY MAJOR

¶23

R/AT KUDERU VILLAGE

¶24

SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI

¶25

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43345 MFA No. 1450 of 2021

¶26

CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT-571440.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND.,ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 21.07.2022)

¶29

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 16.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 106/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶30

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

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

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 16.12.2019 passed by the MACT, Srirangapatna in MVC 106/2019.

¶33

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 19.8.2018, when the deceased Gangadhara was proceeding on TVS Excel bearing registration No.KA-11-EF-2488 on Srirangapatna-Bannuru

¶34

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43345 MFA No. 1450 of 2021

¶35

Road, near Haralikatte of Bangiibore, Mandya, at that time, a Maxi Cab bearing registration No.KA-06-C-7794 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.

¶36

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of

¶37

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

¶38

On service of summons, the respondents appeared

¶39

through counsel and filed written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶40

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.P12. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was

¶41

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43345 MFA No. 1450 of 2021

¶42

examined nor any document was produced. 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 sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.11,18,000/- 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.

¶43

The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶44

a) Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing coolie work. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.7,500/-.

¶45

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43345 MFA No. 1450 of 2021

¶46

b) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE

¶47

CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The same has been rightly considered by the Tribunal.

¶48

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

¶49

LTD. –V- 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’.

¶50

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.

¶51

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:43345 MFA No. 1450 of 2021

¶52

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

¶53

a) Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, the same is not established by the claimants by producing documents.

¶54

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

¶55

b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established

¶56

the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’.

¶57

c) Thirdly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

¶58

under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ is on the higher side.

¶59

d) Fourthly, on appreciation of oral and documentary

¶60

evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶61

e) Lastly, in view of the Division Bench decision of this

¶62

Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS –

¶63

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:43345 MFA No. 1450 of 2021

¶64

V- VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS DISPOSED OF ON

¶65

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

¶66

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

¶67

9. It is not in dispute that Gangadhara died in the road

¶68

traffic accident occurred on 19.8.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶69

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- 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 2018, the notional income of the

¶70

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:43345 MFA No. 1450 of 2021

¶71

deceased has to be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 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 ‘PRANAY SETHI’ (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.17,500/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘16’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.16,80,000/(Rs.17,5001216*50%) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶72

In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’.

¶73

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:43345 MFA No. 1450 of 2021

¶74

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

¶75

the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant No.1, mother of the deceased alone is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’.

¶76

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

¶77

compensation:

¶78

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	16,80,000
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of Filial consortium	40,000
Total	17,50,000

¶79

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶80

ORDER

¶81

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶82

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶83

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:43345 MFA No. 1450 of 2021

¶84

c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

¶85

Rs.17,50,000/- as against Rs.11,18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶86

d) In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra) , the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶87

e) 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.

¶88

f) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount

¶89

shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶90

Sd/JUDGE

¶91

¶92

List No.: 3 Sl. No.: 52

Devamma v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devamma 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

S G Umesha Vs Ilyas T M

K Sharmas @ Khan Sharmas Vs M/S Badave Engg. Ltd.

Sri Lakshmana Vs Sri Pratish D

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Nagamani R v

Indira Poojarthy Vs Reena D Silva

Arkeshwara Vs Deepa. P