Partly allowed

Smt Lalitha v. Kaisar Pasha

Karnataka HC3 Oct 2023MFA/2652/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench allowed claimants first appeal partly, enhancing compensation. Court recalculated loss of dependency using ₹9,500 monthly income per Pranay Sethi guidelines, added 40% for future prospects, and awarded new heads like loss of estate and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to ₹18,80,200 with interest @ 6% per annum on enhanced amount; insurer to deposit within 8 weeks.

Smt Lalitha Vs Kaisar Pasha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:35574-DB MFA No. 2652 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

¶4

BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2652 OF 2021 (MV-D)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SMT. LALITHA

¶13

W/O LATE VENKATAIAH

¶14

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶15

VIJAY

S/O LATE VENKATAIAH

AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS

MINOR,

Digitally signed by D HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶20

THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. LALITHA APPELLANT NO.1

¶21

ARPITHA

¶22

D/O LATE VENKATAIAH

¶23

AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS

¶24

JEEVAN

¶25

S/O LATE VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS

¶26

MINOR, THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. LALITHA APPELLANT NO.1

¶27

ALL ARE R/A CBT COLONY

¶28

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:35574-DB MFA No. 2652 of 2021

¶29

VINOBHA COLONY HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶30

…APPELLANTS

¶31

(BY SRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR.,ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

KAISAR PASHA

¶34

S/O ABDUL SATHAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/A CHIKKANAYAKARA BEEDI T. NARASIPURA TOWN MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶35

THE MANAGER

¶36

HDFC GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., OPP. SUBURB BUS STAND UPSTAIRS OF BHEEMA JEWELLERS MYSURU OOTY ROAD, MYSURU-570 001.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR

¶39

SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶40

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.136/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:35574-DB MFA No. 2652 of 2021

¶43

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, UMESH M ADIGA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT

¶44

This is claimant’s appeal against the judgment and award passed by MACT and Principal Judge, Court of Small causes, Mysuru (hereinafter for short referred as ‘Tribunal’) dated 02.03.2018 in MVC.No.136/2017, for enhancement of

¶45

compensation.

¶46

This matter is slated for orders. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶47

We refer the parties as per their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶48

The case of the claimant is that on 12.09.2015 at 7.30 p.m., the deceased Venkataiah aged about 38 years was returning from work to his village through Hunsur Gadde road; at that time he met with an accident by a car bearing registration No.KA.01-MD-

¶49

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:35574-DB MFA No. 2652 of 2021

¶50

8944, due to rash and negligent driving of car by its driver, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to K.R. Hospital, Mysuru and to J.S.S. Hospital, Mysuru for treatment wherein he succumbed to injuries.

¶51

The deceased was aged about 38 years and was an agriculturist earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimants are his wife and Children and were depending upon his earnings. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.35 lakhs.

¶52

Respondent No.2 – Insurer in its written statement before the Tribunal has denied the contentions of the claim petition and it is further contended that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of policy of insurance and holding of effective driving license by the driver of the car. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:35574-DB MFA No. 2652 of 2021

¶55

The Tribunal on the basis of the rival contentions

¶56

of the parties had framed necessary issues for consideration.

¶57

The claimants have examined PWS.1 & 2 and

¶58

got marked Ex.P1 to P16. Respondents have not led oral or documentary evidence.

¶59

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and on appreciating pleadings and evidence on record, held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. The Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 40 years at the time of accident. His income as Rs.10,500/-, deducted 1/4^th of his income towards personal expenses, applied multiplier as ‘15’ and assessed the compensation under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal has also awarded compensation on the other head as under:

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:35574-DB MFA No. 2652 of 2021

¶62

SL.NO	PARTICULARS	AMOUNT IN (RS.)
1.	Loss of dependency	14,17,500
2.	Loss of love and affection	50,000
3.	Loss of consortium	40000
4.	Loss of estate	15000
5.	Funeral expenses	15,000
	Total	15,37,500

¶63

We have heard the arguments.

¶64

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has not assessed the age, income and multiplier properly. The Tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation on other heads. Therefore, prayed for enhancement of compensation.

¶65

Learned counsel for respondent – insurer has submitted that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence on record and awarded just compensation, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶66

¶67

NC: 2023:KHC:35574-DB MFA No. 2652 of 2021

¶68

The sole question that arises for determination is that:

¶69

“Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation ?”

¶70

It is not in dispute that due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver the accident had taken place and deceased by name Venkatiah died due to the said accident. The said findings of the Tribunal is not challenged by the respondent. Hence, there is no need for interference in the said finding.

¶71

It is the contention of the claimant that deceased was aged about 38 years. They have not produced any document in this regard. In Ex.P8 – post mortem report, the age of the deceased is stated 38 years. Ex.P10 is the Adhar Card, wherein date of birth of deceased is mentioned as 1976. Considering both the documents, the age of the deceased could be considered as between 38 to 40 years. The

¶72

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:35574-DB MFA No. 2652 of 2021

¶73

Tribunal had rightly considered the age of deceased below 40 years.

¶74

The Tribunal has assessed national income of the deceased as Rs.10,500/- p.m. on the basis that if he was working on daily wages of Rs.350/- per day, he could earn Rs.10,500/- per month. The said finding of the Tribunal needs to be re-considered. Admittedly, there is no legal evidence led by the claimant to prove the income of the deceased. Normally, while settlement of dispute pertaining to Motor Vehicle compensation case before the Lok Adalath, income of the victim of an accident of the year 2016 is considered as Rs.9,500/- p.m., same could be applied in the present case.

¶75

The deceased died at the age below 40 years.

¶76

As held in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

¶77

Others¹ , 40% of his income has to be added towards

¶78

1 AIR (2017) SC 5157

¶79

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:35574-DB MFA No. 2652 of 2021

¶80

his future prospects, which is not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly deducted 1/4^th of his earnings towards personal expenses. It is not in dispute that multiplier applicable to the case in hand is ‘15’ . Therefore, compensation under the head

¶81

‘loss of dependency is as follows:

¶82

Salary per month Add: 40%	Rs. 9,500 Rs. 3,800
Total Less: 1/4^th	Rs. 13,300
towards personal expenses	Rs. 3,325
Net income per month	Rs. 9,975

¶83

9,975X12X15=Rs.17,95,500/-

¶84

The Tribunal has not awarded the compensation

¶85

under the conventional heads as per the law laid by

¶86

the Pranay Sethi ( referred supra ) and also in the

¶87

case of recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered

¶88

in the case of SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE

¶89

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:35574-DB MFA No. 2652 of 2021

¶90

COMPANY LIMITED Vs. BHAGAT SINGH RAWAT &

¶91

ORS² . The claimants are entitled for the compensation,

¶92

under conventional heads as per law land down by Apex

¶93

court referred above. Accordingly the claimants are

¶94

entitled for compensation as follows:

¶95

SL.NO	PARTICULARS	AMOUNT IN (RS.)
1.	Loss of dependency	17,95,500
2.	Loss of consortium	48,400
2.	Loss of estate	18,150
3.	Funeral expenses	18,150
	Total	18,80,200

¶96

In all, claimants are entitled for enhancement of Rs.3,42,700/-. The Tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation. Therefore though insurer has not filed appeal then also interference in the finding of the findings of Tribunal is required.

¶97

19. For the aforesaid discussions, we answer the above

¶98

said question ‘Partly-in-the-affirmative’ and pass the

¶99

following:

¶100

ORDER

¶101

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶102

2 C ivil Appeal Nos.2410-2412/2023 dated 27.03.2023

¶103

11 -

¶104

NC: 2023:KHC:35574-DB MFA No. 2652 of 2021

¶105

ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by

¶106

the Tribunal in MVC.No.136/2017 dated 02.03.2018 is modified as under:

¶107

a. The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.18,80,200/- as against Rs.15,37,500/- and entitled for enhancement of compensation of Rs.3,42,700/- with interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of the petition till its realization excluding delayed period of 622 days in filing the appeal.

¶108

b. Respondent – Insurer shall deposit the said amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶109

c. The apportionment, deposit and release of the amount is as ordered by the Tribunal.

¶110

Sd/JUDGE

¶111

Sd/JUDGE

¶112

Smt Lalitha v. Kaisar Pasha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lalitha v. Kaisar Pasha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt C G Geetha Vs State of Karnataka

Sharadamma Vs T S Subramanya

Sri.S.D. Manjunath Vs Sri. Sujay Kumar S.M

S Manjunatha Vs Sudhakar T M

Smt. Mallamma Vs Sri Dinesha Naik

The Branch Manager Vs Manjamma