Partly allowed

Nagamani v. Prashanth

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023MFA/251/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor vehicle accident appeal, the High Court modified the Tribunal's judgment to enhance compensation awarded to dependents of the deceased. Applying Supreme Court precedent, the court added future prospects to income assessment while increasing interest to 6%.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs.32,26,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. to be deposited by the Insurance Company.

Nagamani Vs Prashanth — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39855 MFA No. 251 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2023 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NAGAMANI

¶8

W/O LATE MAHESHASHETTY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶9

AMBIKA

¶10

D/O LATE MAHESHASHETTY AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS.

¶11

RENUKA D/O LATE MAHESHASHETTY AGED ABOUT 5 EYARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

MADAMMA W/O SANNASHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶14

SANNASHETTY

¶15

S/O LATE MADASHETTY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶16

APPELLANT Nos. 2 & 3 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER NAGAMANI- APPELLANT NO.1 ALL ARE R/AT K SHETTAHALLI VILLAGE & HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571438

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI. JAGADISH G KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.L. SREENIVAS., ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39855 MFA No. 251 of 2023

¶20

AND:

¶21

PRASHANTH S/O SWAMY R/AT B BETTAHALLI VILLAGE HATHALLI POST, BANNUR HOBLI T NARASIPRUA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶22

HDFC GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD NO.2912, SRI VENKATESHWARA PLAZA IST MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM MYSORE CITY-570001 REP BY THE MANAGER

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:11.1.2023)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:12.07.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.557/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

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

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

¶29

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for

¶30

short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by

¶31

the judgment dated 12.07.2022 passed by the Additional

¶32

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39855 MFA No. 251 of 2023

¶33

Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Srirangapatna (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.557/2021.

¶34

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 29.12.2020 at 8.15 a.m. the deceased Mahesha Shetty was proceeding on his bicycle on Mysore - Nanjangud main road, near Bandipalya, ring road junction. At that time, a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-13/P-5580 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bicycle of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased fell down, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the hospital.

¶35

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166

¶36

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

¶37

On service of summons, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statements 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

¶38

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39855 MFA No. 251 of 2023

¶39

due to the rash and negligence of the deceased himself. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶40

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded

¶41

the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and other two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was examined nor got exhibited documents. 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.23,89,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39855 MFA No. 251 of 2023

¶43

compensation amount along with interest. Being not satisfied, this appeal has been filed.

¶44

The learned counsel for the claimants has contended that the Tribunal while assessing 'loss of dependency' has to consider addition of future prospects as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶45

the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -vPRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

¶46

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

¶47

(i) Firstly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for addition of future prospects.

¶48

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

¶49

OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the interest granted by the Tribunal at the

¶50

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:39855 MFA No. 251 of 2023

¶51

rate of 9% p.a. is on the higher side. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶52

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

¶53

It is not in dispute that Mahesh Shetti died in

¶54

the road traffic accident occurred on 29.12.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-13/P-5580 by its driver.

¶55

The Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,500/- per month. To the aforesaid amount, 40% has to be added 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.21,700/-, out of which, it is appropriate to deduct 1/4^th towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly income comes to Rs.16,275/-. The deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘15’. Thus, the claimants are

¶56

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:39855 MFA No. 251 of 2023

¶57

entitled to compensation of Rs.29,29,500/-

¶58

(Rs.16,2751215) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶59

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is just and reasonable.

¶60

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

¶61

compensation:

¶62

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	29,29,500
Funeral expenses	16,500
Loss of estate	16,500
Loss of spousal consortium	44,000
Loss of love and affection	2,20,000
Total	32,26,500

¶63

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

¶64

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶65

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:39855 MFA No. 251 of 2023

¶66

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

¶67

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.32,26,500/- in place of Rs.23,89,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶68

(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.

¶69

(iv) The enhanced compensation carries interest @

¶70

6% p.a.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

CM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 44

Nagamani v. Prashanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagamani v. Prashanth

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

M/S Popular Front of India Vs the General Secretary (Org)

Mr M P Yogananda Vs Mrs Nagarathnamma

Smt Senthamari Vs Smt Shakunthala D

Smt. Gangamma Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Somegowda Vs M.R. Lokeshaiah

B.M. Devaraju Vs Srikanth L K