Partly allowed

M E Parvathamma v. the Inspector of Excise

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2023MFA/2885/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal challenges the compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident case. The High Court modified the Tribunal's award by recalculating the deceased's notional income, adding 40% for future prospects, and adjusting heads of compensation, resulting in a total of Rs. 19,58,868.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs. 19,58,868 payable by insurance respondents with interest.

M E Parvathamma Vs the Inspector of Excise — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40606 MFA No. 2885 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2885 OF 2020 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M E PARVATHAMMA W/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶8

KUM BINDU D/O LATE RANGAPPA @ RAGANATHA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS

¶9

PRADEEP

¶10

S/O LATE RANGAPPA @ RAGANATHA AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS

¶11

ALL ARE RESIDING AT MARENADU PALYA & VILLAGE CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT

¶12

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

APPELLANT Nos.2 & 3 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1. …APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SMT. VIJAYA M N., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. P.V. KALPANA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE HOSADURGA RANGE BHAGIRATH COMPLEX HOLALKERE ROAD, HOSADURGA.

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40606 MFA No. 2885 of 2020

¶18

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE 2ND CROSS, MLA THIPPERUDRAPPA BUILDING,V P EXTENSION CHITRADURGA.

¶19

THE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA GENERAL INSURANCE DEPARTMENT MOTOR BRANCH VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER MG ROAD, BANGALORE-01.

¶20

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR KGID MOTOR BRANCH HOLALKERE ROAD CHITRADURGA …RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. M.V. ADITHI., AGA. FOR R3 & R4: NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 11.04.2023)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.951/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, IV MACT, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

¶26

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

¶27

short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.04.2017 passed by the 1^st Senior

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40606 MFA No. 2885 of 2020

¶29

Civil Judge & IV MACT at Chitradurga (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.951/2016.

¶30

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 04.01.2016 at about 3.00 p.m. the deceased Rangappa was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-14/J-5755 from Marenadu Palya to Hiriyur. When they reached near Pillajanahalli gate SH 19, at that time, a Tata Sumo CS van bearing registration No.KA-16/G-356 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle 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.

¶31

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

¶32

On service of summons, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 appeared through counsel and respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have filed written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The age,

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40606 MFA No. 2885 of 2020

¶34

occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It was pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by 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.

¶35

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 got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R2. 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.16,03,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40606 MFA No. 2885 of 2020

¶37

respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶38

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

¶39

(i) Firstly, the claimants claim that at the time of the accident the deceased was an agriculturist and doing dairy business and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as only Rs.8,000/-.

¶40

(ii) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the claimants are entitled for addition of 40% towards ‘future prospects’. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

¶41

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

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40606 MFA No. 2885 of 2020

¶43

(i) Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/- per month, the same is not established by the claimants by producing documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

¶44

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

¶45

(iii) Thirdly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘loss of guidance’ is on the higher side contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM reported in 2018 ACJ 2782.

¶46

(iv) Fourthly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:40606 MFA No. 2885 of 2020

¶49

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶50

perused the judgment and award and original records.

¶51

It is not in dispute that Rangappa died in the road traffic accident occurred on 04.01.2016 due to rash

¶52

and negligent driving of the Tata Van bearing registration No.KA-16/G-356 by its driver.

¶53

The claimants have not produced any evidence or documents with regard to the income of the deceased. Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2016, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.9,500/- p.m. 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.13,300/-, out of which, it is appropriate to deduct 1/3^rd towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly income comes to Rs.8,867/-. The deceased was

¶54

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:40606 MFA No. 2885 of 2020

¶55

aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘17’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.18,08,868/(Rs.8,8671217) on account of ‘loss of dependency’. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE (supra) , the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of consortium’.

¶56

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

¶57

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	18,08,868
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of spousal consortium	40,000
Loss of Parental consortium	80,000
Total	19,58,868

¶58

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:40606 MFA No. 2885 of 2020

¶59

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

¶60

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶61

(ii) The judgment of the claims Tribunal is modified. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.19,58,868/- in place of Rs.16,03,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶62

(iii) The Insurance Company - respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. 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, excluding interest for the delayed period of 891 days in filing the appeal.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

¶65

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 58

M E Parvathamma v. the Inspector of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M E Parvathamma v. the Inspector of Excise

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.K.Narasimha Murthy Vs Kum.Swarna @ Preethi

R Saravanan Vs Smt R Chitra

Sri Raju H Vs Sri Babykutty

Ameer Jan Vs Smt. Saraswathi

Sri. Manjunatha K C Vs Smt. Geetha

Sri.S Rajashekar Murthy, Vs Sri Deva Ram