Partly allowed

B.M. Devaraju v. Srikanth L K

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023MFA/3856/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for a fatal road traffic accident. The Court modified the award to Rs. 21,21,264 based on judicial guidelines and Supreme Court precedents, and reduced the interest rate to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 21,21,264/- carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

B.M. Devaraju Vs Srikanth L K — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39837 MFA No. 3856 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3856 OF 2020 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

B.M. DEVARAJU S/O MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶8

B D BINDHUSHRI D/O B M DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS

¶9

B D HINDHUSHRI D/O B M DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS

¶10

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

APPELLANT Nos. 2 & 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER B.M. DEVARAJU 1^ST APPELLANT ALL ARE R/O YADAVARAHALLI VILLAGE SAKLESHPURA TALUK PRESENTLY R/AT NEAR JANATHA BAZAR KUVEMPU NAGAR, HASSAN-573 201

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SMT. SHARADAMBA A R., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRIKANTH L K S/O H S KUMARASWAMY MAJOR LAKSMIPURA VILLAGE HADLAHALLI POST SAKLESHAPURA TALUK-573 102

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:39837 MFA No. 3856 of 2020

¶18

THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE MANJUNATHESHWARA COMPLEX OLD BUS STAND ROAD HASSAN-573 201.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.C. SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 8.11.2023)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.10.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.791/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

¶25

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 25.10.2019 passed by the MACT, Hassan in MVC No.791/2020.

¶26

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 05.08.2017 when the deceased-Sujatha traveling along with her family in a Car bearing

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39837 MFA No. 3856 of 2020

¶28

Registration No.KA-01-MF-1382 towards Hetturu road, near Bommanakere. At that time, the driver of the said Car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and to avoid the accident to the Bike coming from Hetturu, dashed the car to a tree on the side of the road. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶29

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

¶30

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. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39837 MFA No. 3856 of 2020

¶32

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

¶33

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 another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. On behalf of respondents, neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 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.14,93,275/- along

¶34

with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39837 MFA No. 3856 of 2020

¶36

along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶37

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

¶38

a) Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and she was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by servant as well as managing the plantation. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.7,000/-.

¶39

b) Secondly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782] , each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶40

c) Thirdly, 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.

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:39837 MFA No. 3856 of 2020

¶42

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

¶43

a) Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- 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

b) Secondly, 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.

¶45

c) Thirdly, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS –VVENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS DISPOSED OF ON 24.8.2020), THE RATE OF interest

¶46

granted by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. on the compensation

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:39837 MFA No. 3856 of 2020

¶49

amount is on the higher side. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶50

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶51

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶52

It is not in dispute that Sujathadied in the road traffic accident occurred on 05.08.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶53

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. 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 2017, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY

¶54

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:39837 MFA No. 3856 of 2020

¶55

SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], the Tribunal has rightly

¶56

added 40% of the income of the deceased towards ‘future prospects’. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.15,400/-. The Tribunal has also rightly deducted 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.10,267/-. The deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘16’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.19,71,264/- (Rs.10,2671216) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶57

In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’.

¶58

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant No.1, husband of the deceased is entitled for

¶59

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:39837 MFA No. 3856 of 2020

¶60

compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium' and claimant Nos.2 and 3, children of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’.

¶61

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

¶62

compensation:

¶63

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	19,71,264
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of spousal consortium	40,000
Loss of Parental consortium	80,000
Total	21,21,264

¶64

In the result, I pass the following order:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶67

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶68

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:39837 MFA No. 3856 of 2020

¶69

c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

¶70

Rs.21,21,264/- as against Rs.14,93,275/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶71

d) In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra) , the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶72

e) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced 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

¶73

receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

¶76

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

B.M. Devaraju v. Srikanth L K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.M. Devaraju v. Srikanth L K

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

M/S Popular Front of India Vs the General Secretary (Org)

Mr M P Yogananda Vs Mrs Nagarathnamma

Smt Senthamari Vs Smt Shakunthala D

Nagamani Vs Prashanth

Smt. Gangamma Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Somegowda Vs M.R. Lokeshaiah