Partly allowed

Smt Manjula C v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2023MFA/3874/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a first appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, finding the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's income. The Court enhanced the compensation from approximately Rs. 8.46 lakhs to Rs. 17.53 lakhs by applying the Pranay Sethi doctrine for future prospects and correcting the notional income calculation.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 17,53,200/- including Rs. 9,07,200/- enhancement with interest at 6% p.a.

Smt Manjula C Vs the Divisional Controller — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:36881-DB MFA No. 3874 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3874 OF 2021 (MV-D)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT MANJULA C W/O MANTELINGAIAH S AGED 42 YEARS

¶12

SRI.MANGELINGAIAH S S/O LATE S.SIDDAIAH AGED 53 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by D K BHASKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.26, A-BLOCK JALAPURI, KALYANAGIRI MYSURU CITY-570019.

¶15

(BY SRI. BHANU PRAKASH H V - ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NORTH WESTERN KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION UTTARA KANNADA DIVISION SIRSI-581402 (OWNER AND INSURER OF BUS BEARING NO.KA-31-F-1229)

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA K - ADVOCATE)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:36881-DB MFA No. 3874 of 2021

¶23

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.11.2019 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.131/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, (IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MYSURU).

¶24

THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR .J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is preferred by the appellants / claimants challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.131/2018 dated 19.11.2019 seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, by consideration of the grounds urged therein.

¶27

This appeal though slated for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for both parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel Shri H.V. Bhanuprakash for the appellant and the learned counsel Shri Nagaraja K for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶29

The facts of the case put in a nutshell are that on 24.12.2017 at 11.20 a.m. when the deceased was

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36881-DB MFA No. 3874 of 2021

¶31

returning home in a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-31/F-1229 after visiting holy places in Dakshina Kannada and Udupi District, when the bus neared Yalaguppa village on Honnavara – Thalaguppa road, at that time the driver of the KSRTC bus drove the same at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a two wheeler and toppled on the right side and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the deceased Kum Sangeetha M who was a BBM student traveling in the KSRTC bus, succumbed to severe injures on the spot itself.

¶32

Subsequently, based upon the complaint at

¶33

Exhibit P14, criminal prosecution was initiated and FIR came to be registered as per Ex.P1. Subsequently, the claimants filed claim petition before the jurisdictional Tribunal contending that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to accident and was studying BBM and was also conducting part-time tuition classes and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. and maintaining the family. It

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:36881-DB MFA No. 3874 of 2021

¶36

is contended that the claimants have incurred Rs.1,00,000/- towards transportation and last rituals and hence they being the LRs of deceased, claimed compensation against the respondents.

¶37

In response to the claim petition, respondent / Corporation appeared through its counsel and filed its objection statement. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed which is also reflected in the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal. In support of the contentious contentions made by the petitioners, petitioner No.2 examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents at Exhibits Ex.P1 to P21 on behalf of petitioners. On behalf of the respondent, one Gangadhara Ganapathi Naika was examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2.

¶38

Subsequent to closure of evidence on both the sides, the Tribunal appreciated the evidence of PW.1 – Mantelingiah S who is none other than the father of the deceased and the documents such as Ex.P1 – FIR, Ex.P2 –

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36881-DB MFA No. 3874 of 2021

¶40

spot panchanama, Ex.P3 – rough sketch, Ex. P4 – P.M. report, Ex.P5 – IMV report, Ex.P6 – charge sheet, Exs.P7 to P9 – Copy of Aadhaar cards, Exs. P10 to P12 – School records, Ex.P13 – Copy of FIR, Ex. P14 – Copy of complaint and Ex.P15 to 21 – Copy of marks cards, which were got marked on the part of the claimants seeking absolute compensation under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, without any proof of evidence as regards the income, the Tribunal had fixed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month and deducting 50% of the said income towards personal expenses and applying multiplier ‘18’, had arrived at the compensation awarded towards ‘Loss of dependency’, at Rs.7,56,000/-. Further, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.50,000/towards ‘loss of love and affection’, Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’, Rs.25,000/- towards ‘transportation and funeral expenses’. Thus, the Tribunal had awarded total compensation of Rs.8,46,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:36881-DB MFA No. 3874 of 2021

¶42

realization. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

¶43

given in a Tabular column as under:

¶44

Towards loss of love and affection	Rs.	50,000/-
Towards Estate	Rs.	15,000/-
Towards transportation and funeral	Rs.	25,000/-
expenses
Towards loss of dependency	Rs.	7,56,000/-
TOTAL	Rs.	8,46,000/-

¶45

It is this judgment which has been challenged by the claimants by urging various grounds.

¶46

Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants

¶47

contends that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at a very meager amount of Rs.7,000/- p.m. since there was no proof of income. Even as per the chart issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income of a person who had met with an accident in the year 2017 even without there being any proof of income, is taken as Rs.11,000/- p.m. Hence, the learned counsel contends that the Tribunal having taken the monthly income of the

¶48

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:36881-DB MFA No. 3874 of 2021

¶49

deceased at Rs.7,000/- p.m., is on the lower side. Therefore, the said income has to be taken at Rs.11,000/per month to calculate the compensation to be awarded towards ‘loss of dependency’. It is further contended that 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects and after deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses, the compensation to be awarded towards ‘loss of dependency’ is to be worked out. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants – claimants seeks for intervention of the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No.131/2018.

¶50

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent / Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal by considering the oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly awarded just and fair compensation to the claimants and hence the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal need not be

¶51

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:36881-DB MFA No. 3874 of 2021

¶52

interfered in this appeal. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

¶53

Keeping in view the contentious contentions taken by learned counsel for the parties stated supra, the accident in question is not in dispute and further the Tribunal based upon the oral and documentary evidence available on record has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident caused by the offending vehicle.

¶54

The Tribunal while assessing compensation, had taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/p.m. Admittedly, there was no acceptable evidence to accept the income pleaded by petitioners. Therefore, notional income of the deceased is to be assessed. While settlement of the disputes before the Lok Adalath pertaining to Motor Vehicle Accident cases, the notional income of a victim of an accident which had taken place during the year 2017 is considered as Rs.11,000/- per month. Same could be applied to the facts of the present

¶55

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:36881-DB MFA No. 3874 of 2021

¶56

case. Hence, the notional income of the deceased is taken at Rs.11,000/- per month.

¶57

Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 18 years at the time of accident. Therefore, 40% of her income has to be added towards future prospects as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI

¶58

AND OTHERS¹ . If the same is added, i.e., (11,000 + 40%) the income of the deceased comes to Rs.15,400/per month, which is taken as the notional income of the deceased. 50% of the said income is to be deducted since she was unmarried and hence, the net income on which the parents of the deceased were dependant upon was, Rs.7,700/- per month. It is not in dispute that the multiplier applicable to the facts of the present case is ‘18’. Therefore, the compensation to be awarded under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’ is Rs.7,700/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.16,63,200/- as against Rs.7,56,000/- awarded by the

¶59

1 (AIR 2017 SC 5157)

¶60

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:36881-DB MFA No. 3874 of 2021

¶61

Tribunal under the said head. However, the compensation granted by the Tribunal in respect of all other heads, remains unaltered.

¶62

Hence, the appellants / claimants are entitled for

¶63

the following amount of compensation:

¶64

Loss of Dependency	Rs.	16,63,200/-
Loss of love and affection	Rs.	50,000/-
Loss of Estate	Rs.	15,000/-
Transportation and funeral expenses	Rs.	25,000/-
TOTAL	Rs.	17,53,200/-

¶65

In all, claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.17,53,200/- as against Rs.8,46,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants are entitled for enhancement of Rs.9,07,200/-. The said enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

¶66

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:36881-DB MFA No. 3874 of 2021

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶69

ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.131/2018 dated 19.11.2019 is modified.

¶70

iii) Appellants / Claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.17,53,200/- as against Rs.8,46,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶71

iv) The enhanced compensation comes to Rs.9,07,200/-. The said enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶72

v) It is also submitted that a sum of Rs.15,000/- has

¶73

already been paid to the claimants as interim compensation. Hence, the said amount shall be deducted while disbursing the enhanced compensation.

¶74

vi) Apportionment, deposit and release of the amount shall be as ordered by the Tribunal. Whatever the amount

¶75