Partly allowed

Sri. Jay Lingu v. Ravindra

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2023MFA/2817/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the first revision appeal partly, enhancing the motor accident compensation from Rs. 5.65 lakh to Rs. 13.41 lakh. The court corrected the notional income, increased loss of dependency and consortium awards based on Apex Court precedents, and directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs. 13,41,000 with interest, directed to be deposited by the insurance company within eight weeks.

Sri. Jay Lingu Vs Ravindra — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 2817 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2817 OF 2017 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. JAY LINGU S/O KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶9

PUNITHA J S/O KULLEGOWDA

¶10

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶11

AMITHA J

¶12

D/O KULLEGOWDA

¶13

AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS ALL ARE R/O OF BELIKOTHANURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI

¶14

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

CHANNAPATNA TALUK-562160.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T P., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

RAVINDRA S/O SIDDAIAH R/A NO.314, 14TH CROSS 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560004.

¶20

THE UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD R.O MOTAR SERVICE

¶21

5TH & 6TH FLOOR, KRISHNA BHAVAN

¶22

¶23

MFA No. 2817 of 2017

¶24

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. MANJULA N. TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. NARENDRA D.V., GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶27

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:22.02.014 PASSED IN MVC NO.533/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, MACT, CHANNAPATTANA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶28

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

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ for brevity) by the appellant–claimant, calling in question the

¶31

judgment and award dated 22.02.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.533/2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Channapatna,

¶32

¶33

MFA No. 2817 of 2017

¶34

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) for seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶35

Brief facts:

¶36

On 14.06.2012 at about 10.45 a.m., when the

¶37

deceased Smt.Meena @ Meena Kumari was crossing the Bangalore-Mysore Road in front of Adarsha Bar at Mudagere Gate, a car bearing No.KA-05-ME-4101 came in high speed and rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased who was taking U-turn and she sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital.

¶38

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the legal representatives under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, and

¶39

awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,65,000/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the

¶40

¶41

MFA No. 2817 of 2017

¶42

date of realisation. The Tribunal held respondent Nos.1 to 2 therein, liable to pay the compensation.

¶43

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 – insurance company and perused the materials on record.

¶44

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

¶45

as follows:

¶46

Loss of Dependency	: Rs.	5,40,000/-
Transportation, Funeral Expenses And Obsequies	: Rs.	10,000/-
Loss of Estate	: Rs.	10,000/-
Towards Consortium	: Rs.	5,000/-
TOTAL	: Rs.	5,65,000/-

¶47

In the present case, the deceased was 37 years

¶48

old woman and was working as a coolie. The Tribunal has committed error in adopting the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month as it is on lesser side.

¶49

¶50

MFA No. 2817 of 2017

¶51

The accident was caused on 14.06.2012. Therefore, the notional income as recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the said year is Rs.7,000/- per annum.

¶52

As per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi¹ and in the case of New India Assurance Company Vs. Abdul S/o Mehaboob Tahasildar² 40% of the income is added towards 'loss of future prospects in life'

¶53

There are three dependants of deceased, therefore, 1/3^rd amount would be deducted towards ‘Personal And Living Expenses’. The appropriate multiplier applicable as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

¶54

Court, in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma & Others. Vs.

¶55

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶56

2 MFA.NO.103807/2016 C/W MFA.NOS.103835/2016 & 103807/2018

¶57

DD.27.05.2022

¶58

¶59

MFA No. 2817 of 2017

¶60

Delhi Transport Corpn And Another³ is ‘15’. Therefore,

¶61

the compensation under the head ‘Loss Of Dependency

¶62

along with Loss of Future Prospects in Life’ is recalculated and quantified as follows:

¶63

Rs.7,000 + 2,800 (40% of 7,000) x 2/3 x 15 x 12 = Rs.11,75,999/- Rounded Off To Rs.11,76,000/-

¶64

The Tribunal has committed error in awarding

¶65

compensation ‘Loss Of Consortium and Love And Affection’ at Rs.40,000/-, which is on the lesser side. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited v.

¶66

Nanu Ram & Others⁴ and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi⁵ , the claimants being husband and children of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each, along with 10% escalation. Accordingly,

¶67

Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 3 + 10%) is awarded under

¶68

3 AIR 2009 SC 3104

¶69

4 2018 ACJ 2782

¶70

5 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶71

¶72

MFA No. 2817 of 2017

¶73

the head ‘Loss Of Consortium including Loss Of Love

¶74

And Affection’

¶75

Further, a compensation of Rs.15,000/- each

¶76

is awarded under the head ‘Loss Of Estate’ And ‘Funeral And Transportation’ respectively, along with 10% escalation. Therefore, Rs.33,000/- (Rs.15,000 x 2 + 10%) towards ‘Loss Of Estate’ And ‘Funeral And

¶77

Transportation’ .

¶78

Thus, in all the appellants/claimants are entitled

¶79

for enhanced compensation as follows:

¶80

Loss of Dependency 7,000 + 2,800(40% of 7,000)x 2/3 x 15 x 12	:	Rs.	11,76,000/-
Loss of Consortium (Rs.40,000 x 3 x 10%)	:	Rs.	1,32,000/-
Loss of Estate	:	Rs.	16,500/-
Funeral and Transportation Expenditure	:	Rs.	16,500/-
TOTAL	:	Rs.	13,41,000/-

¶81

Therefore, the appellants-claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.13,41,000/- as against

¶82

¶83

MFA No. 2817 of 2017

¶84

Rs.5,65,000/-. The appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.7,76,000/-

¶85

(Rs.13,41,000 – Rs.5,65,000) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of total compensation within Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶86

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶87

ORDER

¶88

i. The appeal is Allowed In Part .

¶89

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 22.02.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.533/2012, on

¶90

the file of the Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Channapatna, is modified to the aforesaid extent.

¶91

¶92

MFA No. 2817 of 2017

¶93

iii. The appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.7,76,000/(Rs.13,41,000 – Rs.5,65,000) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. However, the appellants-claimants are not are entitled for interest for the delayed period of 1043 days, in filing the appeal.

¶94

iv. Respondent No.2 – insurance company shall pay the compensation to the appellants/claimants.

¶95

v. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶96