Partly allowed

Sri Lakshmana v. Sri Pratish D

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2023MFA/3481/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the first appeal filed by claimants against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.10,91,640 to Rs.19,85,000 by recalculating dependency on notional income and adjusted the interest rate from 8% to 6% per annum following a Division Bench precedent.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs.19,85,000; interest rate reduced to 6% per annum.

Sri Lakshmana Vs Sri Pratish D — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43143 MFA No. 3481 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3481 OF 2021 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI LAKSHMANA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶8

SRI SHASHIDHAR S/O LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶9

SRI MADHU S/O LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT

¶10

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SHETTIGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MAYASANDRA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 586201

¶12

(BY SRI. M V MAHESWARAPPA.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

SRI PRATISH D

¶16

S/O DODDA SIDDAREDDY L AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO 131, DODDAKANNENAHALLI SARJAPURA ROAD CARMELARAM POST BENGALURU – 560035.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:43143 MFA No. 3481 of 2021

¶19

THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE (RO) KRUSHI BHAVAN HUB 6TH FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560001

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.C SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 06.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 4708/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-18), 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 Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 6.1.2020 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru in MVC 4708/2019.

¶26

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly

¶27

stated are that on 15.5.2019, when the deceased

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43143 MFA No. 3481 of 2021

¶29

Lalithamma was walking on left side of Yadiyuru-Kallur Road, Shettigondanahalli Cicle, Mayasandra Hobli, at that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-51-MH-3366 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶30

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

¶31

On service of summons, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. .

¶32

The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was placed ex-parte.

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43143 MFA No. 3481 of 2021

¶34

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.P13. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced. 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.10,91,640/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶35

The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the

¶36

following contentions:

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43143 MFA No. 3481 of 2021

¶38

a) Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of the accident and she was earning Rs.2,000/- per day by working as bangle selling business. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.9,500/-.

¶39

b) 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 [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 25% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ should be the warrant where the deceased was between the age group of 40-50 years. The same has been considered by the Tribunal. c) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

¶40

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:43143 MFA No. 3481 of 2021

¶41

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

¶42

a) Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per day, the same is not established by the claimants by producing documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

¶43

b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established

¶44

the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’.

¶45

c) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶46

d) Lastly, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS –

¶47

V- VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS DISPOSED OF ON

¶48

24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:43143 MFA No. 3481 of 2021

¶51

at 8% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher

¶52

side. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶53

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶54

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶55

It is not in dispute that Lalithamma died in the road traffic accident occurred on 15.5.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶56

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per day. But they have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2019, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.14,000/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 25% has been rightly added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the

¶57

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:43143 MFA No. 3481 of 2021

¶58

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘PRANAY SETHI’ (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.17,500/-. Since there are 3 dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to her age group is ‘14’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.18,20,000/(Rs.17,5001213*2/3) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶59

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

¶60

12. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

¶61

Compensation under	Amount in
different Heads	(Rs.)
Loss of dependency	18,20,000

¶62

¶63

NC: 2023:KHC:43143 MFA No. 3481 of 2021

¶64

Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of consortium	1,20,000
Medical expenses	15,000
Total	19,85,000

¶65

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶68

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶69

c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

¶70

Rs.19,85,000/- as against Rs.10,91,640/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶71

d) In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this

¶72

Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra) , the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶73

e) 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

¶74

NC: 2023:KHC:43143 MFA No. 3481 of 2021

¶75

10 -

¶76

a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶77

f) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount

¶78

shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

DM List No.: 3 Sl No.: 43

Sri Lakshmana v. Sri Pratish D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lakshmana v. Sri Pratish D

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

Mohammed Nawaz Vs P v Govindacharyulu

Smt G Nagarathnamma Vs Mr M v Chandrashekarappa

Mr Kaleemulla Khan Vs Mr Shafiquddin Shariff

S G Umesha Vs Ilyas T M

K Sharmas @ Khan Sharmas Vs M/S Badave Engg. Ltd.

Lakshmi @ Lakshmi Bai Vs the Managing Director