Partly allowed

Smt Anusuyamma v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2023MFA/3571/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor vehicle accident appeal, the High Court enhanced compensation awarded to the family of a deceased taxi driver. The Court allowed the widow sister to be included as a dependent and computed loss of dependency with proper escalation under relevant precedents.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part; the impugned award is modified by an enhancement of Rs. 2,40,796/-.

Smt Anusuyamma Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:23226 MFA No. 3571 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3571 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. ANUSUYAMMA, W/O LATE. VENKATESH C T, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

¶10

KUMARI. KUSUMA C V, D/O LATE. VENKATESH C T, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

¶11

SRI PUNEETH KUMAR C V, S/O. LATE VENKATESH C T, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

¶12

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

¶13

SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE. GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT NO. 9, 1ST CROSS, ANANTHPURA, S.N.HALLI (P), YELAHANKA , BENGALURU.

¶15

PERMANENT R/O: KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, MADHUGIRI TALUK, CHIKKAMALUR, TUMKUR-572 175. …APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI P SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE [VC])

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:23226 MFA No. 3571 of 2019

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K H ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI B.S KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RAMYA.H.N, ADVOCATE FOR REPONDENT/KSRTC [PH])

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.7515/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT AND XLI ACMM, BENGALURU (SCCH17), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal by the petitioners arises out of the

¶27

judgment and award in MVC No.7515/2017 passed by the learned XIX Additional Small Causes Judge and XLI ACMM, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru, on 21-06-2018, whereby a sum of Rs.18,78,846/- has been awarded as compensation on account of the death of Venkatesh in the road traffic accident.

¶28

The petitioners contend that they are the wife,

¶29

children and sister of deceased Venkatesh, who died in a

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:23226 MFA No. 3571 of 2019

¶31

Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 7-12-2017 at about

¶32

2.45 p.m. in the afternoon when the two wheeler on which he was proceeding towards Doddaballapura from Gunjur on Gunjur-Doddaballapur road, near BP Petrol bunk, Kantanakunte, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, was hit by a KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-40/F-1048 from behind due to impact the he fell to ground and sustained injuries. After the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Doddaballapura, wherein he succumbs to the injuries while under treatment. He was aged 48 years and

¶33

was hale and healthy at the time of accident and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as driver- cum -owner of a taxi. The jurisdictional police registered case

¶34

against the driver of bus, which is owned by the respondent, who is liable to pay compensation. Therefore, they claimed a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

¶35

Respondent-KSRTC on its appearance before the

¶36

Tribunal resisted the claim by filing written statement denying petition averments and inter alia contended that,

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:23226 MFA No. 3571 of 2019

¶38

there was no such negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law. It also contended that the age, occupation and income of the deceased as claimed by the petitioners is to be proved by them and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues and the petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P32 were marked. The driver of the KSRTC bus was examined as RW1.

¶40

After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.18,08,846/- under the following heads:

¶41

Towards loss of dependency	Rs.18,08,846/-
Towards loss of consortium	Rs. 40,000/-
Towards loss of estate	Rs. 15,000/-
Towards funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
Total	Rs. 18,78,846/-

¶42

While coming to the such conclusion, the Tribunal

¶43

has assessed the income of the deceased by taking

¶44

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23226 MFA No. 3571 of 2019

¶45

average of the income tax returns filed by him and added 25% towards future prospects (average income p.a. was taken at Rs.1,66,976/- after deduction of the taxes).

¶46

Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the petitioners are before this Court in appeal seeking enhancement, on the ground that though the petitioner No.4 is a widow and sister of the deceased was living with the deceased and since she is a widow she was also a dependent of the deceased. The Tribunal erred in appreciating the evidence available on record and held that 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. In fact, it should have deducted 1/4th and he restricted his argument in respect of the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased to be correct and proper.

¶47

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-KSRTC submit that the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased and it has also

¶48

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:23226 MFA No. 3571 of 2019

¶49

considered that the sister of the deceased was married and therefore, she cannot be termed to be a dependent. He further pointed out that the address of the deceased as per the complaint and various other documents which are produced by the petitioners i.e. Exs.P1-,14,15 and 27 are different than that of the address of the petitioner No.4. Therefore, he defends the conclusion reached by the Tribunal.

¶50

On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the Tribunal in Para No.17 considered the loss of dependency. It has observed that to substantiate that the petitioner No.4 is the widow and dependent on the deceased, the petitioners have not produced any scrap of paper. It is noticed that Exs.P13 is the Aadhar card of the petitioner No.4 shows that she is the wife of Gangadharappa, the death certificate of Gangadharappa. is not produced and therefore, it came to the conclusion that the petitioner No.4 cannot be termed to one of the family members and as such there being only three

¶51

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:23226 MFA No. 3571 of 2019

¶52

dependants, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased.

¶53

The perusal of Ex.P31 (which has been wrongly stated by the Tribunal as Ex.P13) show that the petitioner No.4 is shown to be the resident of Kodigenahalli village and Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Chikkamalur, Tumkur District, whereas, Ex.P9, which is the Aadhar card of the deceased show that he is also the resident of Chikkamalur BGrama Panchayat, Kodigenahalli village Tumkur District. It is evident that both these Aadhar cards show the same address. Nodoubt, the petitioners have not produced the ration card pertaining to them to establish their common residence, but the affidavit evidence of PW1 shows that her husband's sister, petitioner No.4 is residing with them, has not been denied in the cross examination. Respondent suggests in the cross examination that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are not the family members of the deceased, which has been denied by PW1. But there is no suggestion that the PW4 is not the family member of the deceased.

¶54

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:23226 MFA No. 3571 of 2019

¶55

Under these circumstances, it is evident that there is no such denial that the petitioner No.4 was not the member of the family and the dependent on deceased. Further, it is to be noted that in Indian context, none would come to proclaim that a lady is a widow. Under these circumstances, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the petitioner No.4 is not a member of the family of the deceased cannot be accepted.

¶56

In view of the above conclusions, the loss of dependency is calculated as: Rs.2,08,712/- (as arrived by the Tribunal which is not in dispute) x 3/4 x 13 = 20,34,942/-.

¶57

In addition to that, the petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.84,700/- under the conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium or filial love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company

¶58

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, after giving 10%

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC:23226 MFA No. 3571 of 2019

¶60

¶61

escalation for every three years. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.48,400/-, Rs.18,150/- and Rs.18,150/- respectively under the conventional heads.

¶62

Thus, the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.21,19,642/- under the following heads:

¶63

Towards loss of dependency	Rs.20,34,942/-
Towards loss of consortium	Rs. 48,400/-
Towards loss of estate	Rs. 18,150/-
Towards funeral expenses	Rs. 18,150/-
Total	Rs. 21,19,642/-
Less: awarded by the Tribunal	Rs. 18,78,846/-
Enhancement	Rs. 2,40,796/-

¶64

Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners

¶65

are entitled for a sum of Rs.2,40,796/- together with interest in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

(i) The appeal is allowed in part

¶68

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:23226 MFA No. 3571 of 2019

¶69

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.2,40,796/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit before the Tribunal.

¶70

(iii) The rest of the terms and conditions ordered by the Tribunal regarding apportionment and deposit remain unaltered, except that it shall determine the compensation entitled by petitioner No.4.

¶71

(iv) Respondent-KSRTC is directed to deposit the compensation amount within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 99

Smt Anusuyamma v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Anusuyamma v. the Managing Director

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 Susheelamma Vs the Head Master

Vanajakshi Vs Gagan Enterprises

Krishnegowda Vs Manu C D

Vijayaraj Urs Vs the Managing Director Bmtc

Master Yuvaraj D S Vs P Junu Ganapathi

Sri Suresh K Vs Sri Lal Sab