Partly allowed

Lakshmamma @ Jayalakshmamma v. the Manager

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2023MFA/2857/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal concerned the quantum of compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident death case. The High Court observed that the Tribunal had erred in considering a lower notional income of Rs. 7,500/month instead of the prescribed Rs. 8,000/month, resulting in an enhanced compensation award by a marginal amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 40,450 with 6% per annum interest from the date of petition. Impugned award modified.

Lakshmamma @ Jayalakshmamma Vs the Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:23956 MFA No. 2857 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2857 OF 2020 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA @ JAYALAKSHMAMMA, W/O. A. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶9

BHARATHI N., D/O. A. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶10

K.N. SANGEETHA, D/O. A. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SHALINI K.N., D/O. LATE A. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶13

SWATHI K.N., D/O. LATE A. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUR 25 YEARS,

¶14

GANGAMMA, W/O. LATE AJJAPPA BEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶15

ALL ARE R/A

¶16

N KURABARAHALLI NANAGALLI POST,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:23956 MFA No. 2857 of 2020

¶19

MULABHAGAL TALUK, NEAR DHARMARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE, KATHRIPALYA KOLAR - 563 101.

¶20

…APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SMT. KALPANA P.V., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE MANAGER, M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BAGLUR MANSION, DODDAPET KOLAR - 563 101.

¶24

SRI. G. DEVEGOWDA, S/O. GOPALAGOWDA, MAJOR, R/A BANKANAHALLI VILLAGE, THYAVANAHALLI POST, KOLAR TALUK - 563 101.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. GEETHA R., ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED: 26/9/22, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.476/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MULBAGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:23956 MFA No. 2857 of 2020

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Though the matter is posted for admission, by the consent of the both the sides, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent no.1.

¶34

The appellants are petitioners in

¶35

MVC.No.476/2013 which was partly allowed by the Sr. Civil Judge and MACT, Mulbagal on 30.07.2018 by awarding compensation of Rs.13,04,250/-.

¶36

Brief facts of the case:-

¶37

The petitioners contended that on 11.10.2013 deceased A. Narayanappa was crossing the road near APMC yard, Malur road, Kolar and rider of the two wheeler bearing registration no. KA-07-U-6471 came in a rash and negligent manner and collided with deceased A. Narayanappa. Due to which he sustained head injuries and he was taken to NIMHANS hospital, Bengaluru and on the way he succumbed to the injuries.

¶38

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:23956 MFA No. 2857 of 2020

¶39

The petitioners being his dependants have filed claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. They contended that the deceased was doing business and also agriculturist earning Rs.30,000/- per month and maintaining his family.

¶40

On issuance of notice, the respondent no.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed objections. Respondent no.1, owner of the vehicle contended that there was no such negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle and compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law. He also disputed the age, income and occupation of deceased and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶41

The respondent no.2-insurance company contended that there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy and therefore the liability is to be fastened upon the respondent no.1. However the issuance of policy covering the vehicle owned by respondent no.1 was admitted.

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23956 MFA No. 2857 of 2020

¶43

The Tribunal framed appropriate issues on the

¶44

basis of the pleadings and the petitioner no.3 was examined as PW-1 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-17 were marked. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents.

¶45

After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal held

¶46

that there was no evidence to show the income of the deceased and therefore the notional income of Rs.7,500/was considered and compensation of Rs.13,04,250/- was

¶47

awarded under the following heads:

¶48

Sl.No.	Nature of the heads	Compensation (Rs.)
1.	Loss of dependency	11,81,250=00
2.	Loss of consortium	40,000=00
3.	Towards funeral expenses	15,000=00
4.	Los of Estate	15,000=00
5.	Conveyance	3,000=00
6.	Love and affection	50,000=00
	Total	13,04,250=00

¶49

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and

¶50

award the petitioners have approached this court in appeal.

¶51

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:23956 MFA No. 2857 of 2020

¶52

The petitioners/appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and low and the notional income considered by the Tribunal is erroneous. Hence, they sought for enhancement of the compensation.

¶53

On issuance of notice, the respondent no.1insurance company has appeared through its counsel. Notice to respondent no.2 is dispensed with.

¶54

The fact that there was an accident involving the vehicle owned by the respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2 that deceased died in the road traffic accident is not in dispute. So also the liability of the respondent no.2-insurance company is not in dispute. The only point that is urged before this court is regarding quantum of the compensation.

¶55

Evidently, the deceased was aged about 43 years at the time of the accident and there is no documentary evidence to show the income of the deceased at the time of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal

¶56

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:23956 MFA No. 2857 of 2020

¶57

is justified in adopting notional income for the purpose of calculation of the compensation amount.

¶58

The Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.7,500/- per month. However, the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the settlement of the disputes before the Lok-Adalat, prescribe the notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month for the year 2013. In umpteen number of decisions, it is held that, the guidelines issued by KSLSA are in general conformity with wages fixed under Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.8,000/- per month.

¶59

The deceased being aged about 43 years, there shall be future prospects at 25% and therefore, the effective notional monthly income is Rs.8,000/- + Rs.2,000/- = Rs.10,000/-.

¶60

Hence, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.10,000/- x 12 x 14 x 3/4^th by holding the personal expenses of the deceased at 1/4^th and the multiplier at 14

¶61

= Rs.12,60,000/-.

¶62

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:23956 MFA No. 2857 of 2020

¶63

In addition to the above amount, the petitioners

¶64

are also entitled for a sum of Rs.48,400/- in respect of the loss of consortium and love and affection and Rs.18,150/each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Hence, petitioners are entitled for a total

¶65

compensation of Rs.13,44,700/- under following heads:

¶66

Sl.No.	Nature of the heads	Compensation (Rs.)
1.	Loss of dependency	12,60,000=00
2.	Loss of consortium & love and affection	48,400=00
3.	Towards funeral expenses	18,150=00
4.	Loss of Estate	18,150=00
	Total	13,44,700=00
	Less compensation awarded by the Tribunal	13,04,250=00
	Addl. Compensation awarded	40,450=00

¶67

Thus, there shall be an enhancement of Rs.40,450/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶68

¶69

NC: 2023:KHC:23956 MFA No. 2857 of 2020

¶70

In view of the aforesaid reasons, appeal

¶71

deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following

¶72

order:-

¶73

ORDER

¶74

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part.

¶75

ii. The petitioners are entitled for the compensation of Rs.40,450/- in addition to compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum (excluding 439 days as per dated 27.03.2023) from the date of the petition till deposit before the Tribunal. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly.

¶76

iii. Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within six weeks.

¶77

iv. The order of the Tribunal regarding apportionment and fixed deposit remain unaltered.

¶78

Sd/JUDGE

¶79

¶80

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 88

Lakshmamma @ Jayalakshmamma v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmamma @ Jayalakshmamma v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shivahuchhaiah Vs the Managing Director

Divisional Controller Vs Smt. Sanamma

Ravikumar Vs Narayana G

Chandra Mendon Vs Ravindra Naik

Sri Dharmegowda G C Vs the Divisional Controller

Jyothi Vs the Manager