Partly allowed

Smt Susheelamma v. the Head Master

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2023MFA/3905/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed Motor Vehicle Appeal partially, enhancing compensation from Rs. 12,52,000 to Rs. 14,51,900 by applying Supreme Court guidelines for future prospects and inevitable enhancement, directing the insurer to pay the difference with interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; impugned award modified to add Rs. 1,99,900 with 6% interest; Respondent No.2 directed to deposit amount within six weeks.

Smt Susheelamma Vs the Head Master — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:22865 MFA No. 3905 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3905 OF 2017(MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA, W/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶9

SHASHI KUMAR, S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

¶10

BOTH ARE R/AT GEJJAGARA GUPPE, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT-562 120.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

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

¶13

(BY SRI D.S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.V. SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE HEAD MASTER, SRI MARUTHI PUBLIC SCHOOL, HOSAPETE, MAGADI TOWN AND TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-560 120.

¶16

M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., R/BY ITS MANAGER, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS HUB, NO.9/2, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:22865 MFA No. 3905 of 2017

¶19

M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI K. KISHOR KUMAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED 05.02.2020)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.2300/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents.

¶26

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award in MVC.No.2300/2016 rendered by the XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru dated 30.01.2017. The appellants are the petitioners before the Tribunal and are seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶27

Brief facts of the case are as below:

¶28

The petitioners are the mother and brother of the deceased, who was aged 21 years and was studying in 3^rd year

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:22865 MFA No. 3905 of 2017

¶30

B.Sc. and was to be appointed as Manager of Grameen Financial Service Private Limited. It was contended that on 10.12.2014, the deceased was riding the motorcycle near B.G.Rangaswamy Poultry and a Eicher school bus bearing registration No.KA-43-3007 came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased and as a result, he was shifted to Hosmat Hospital for treatment and he died on 11.12.2014. The petitioners contended that they had performed the obsequies of the deceased and they are entitled for the compensation from the owner and insurer of the school bus.

¶31

On issuance of notice by the Tribunal, the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and respondents contended that the accident was not due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the said bus but it was on account of negligence of the deceased himself.

¶32

The respondent No.1 admitted that he is the owner of the school bus and contended that it was insured by respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 contended that terms and conditions of the policy were violated and the

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:22865 MFA No. 3905 of 2017

¶35

compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant,

¶36

imaginary and untenable in law.

¶37

The appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal

¶38

and the petitioner No.1 was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P17 were marked. The respondent No.2 examined the driver of the vehicle as RW.1 and Ex.R1 was marked.

¶39

After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal held that

¶40

income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- per month and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the compensation under the different heads as below:

¶41

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Loss of dependency	10,80,000/-
Loss of love and affection	30,000/-
Loss of estate	30,000/-
Transportation and funeral expenses	30,000/-
Medical expenses	82,000/-
TOTAL	12,52,000/-

¶42

Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the

¶43

petitioners are before this Court seeking enhancement.

¶44

On issuance of notice by this Court, respondent

¶45

No.2 appeared and notice to respondent No.1 was dispensed

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:22865 MFA No. 3905 of 2017

¶48

with. The Tribunal records have been secured and the arguments by both the sides were heard.

¶49

The fact that there was an accident involving the motorcycle of the deceased and the bus belonging to the respondent No.1 is not in dispute. Similarly, the fact that the said vehicle was covered by the insurance policy issued by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company is also not in dispute. Though a contention was taken by respondent No.2 that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated, no such evidence was lead by it and as such, the Tribunal has fastened the liability upon Insurance Company. Therefore, it is only the quantum of compensation amount which needs to be considered by this Court in this appeal.

¶50

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the deceased was yet to be appointed as a Manager of the Grameen Financial Service Private Limited but he had not yet joined for duty and he was undergoing a training, during which period, he met with the accident and died. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the fact that he was the earning member of the family of the petitioners, moreover, it is relevant to note

¶51

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:22865 MFA No. 3905 of 2017

¶52

that the Tribunal has accepted the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month without there being any documentary evidence. It is also relevant to note that Ex.P12 which is a letter issued by Grameen Financial Service Private Limited showed that he was selected for the Grameena Leadership Training and on successful completion of training, he would be paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- per year and such payment also would be subject to certain conditions. It is relevant to note that the Tribunal without any basis has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased had not completed his studies and the performance in the studies are also not before the Court.

¶53

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Tribunal had to take notional income that would be applicable for the year 2014. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settlement of the disputes before the Lok-Adalat prescribed a notional income of Rs.8,500/- for the year 2014. In umpteen number of decisions, it has been held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and therefore, the notional income of the deceased is

¶54

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:22865 MFA No. 3905 of 2017

¶55

considered at Rs.8,500/- per month. Therefore, the 'loss of dependency' is calculated by considering the 'future prospects' at 40% of same, which comes to Rs.3,400/-. Therefore, the multiplicant is considered at Rs.11,900/- and the 'loss of dependency' is calculated as Rs.11,900/- X 12 X 18 X 50% = Rs.12,85,200/-.

¶56

In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS¹ , there shall be an enhancement of 10% for every three years and therefore, compensation under the head of 'love and affection' is held to be Rs.48,400/- and the compensation under the head of 'loss of estate and funeral expenses' are held to be at Rs.18,150/each.

¶57

The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.82,000/- under the head of medical expenses, which do not require any reconsideration.

¶58

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below:

¶59

1 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:22865 MFA No. 3905 of 2017

¶62

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Loss of dependency	12,85,200/-
Loss of love and affection	48,400/-
Loss of estate and funeral expenses (Rs.18,150/-X 2)	36,300/-
Medical expenses	82,000/-
TOTAL	14,51,900/-
Less awarded by Tribunal	12,52,000/-
Enhancement	1,99,900/-

¶63

16. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced

¶64

compensation of Rs.1,99,900/- with interest and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶67

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the

¶68

Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.1,99,900/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.

¶69

(iii) The respondent No.2/Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶70

NC: 2023:KHC:22865 MFA No. 3905 of 2017

¶71

¶72

(iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered.

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 104

Smt Susheelamma v. the Head Master

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Susheelamma v. the Head Master

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

Anandalal and Ganesh Podar Society Vs the Manager Bajaj Alliance Insurance

Gopalaiah K Y Vs Miss Nirmala K G

Bhagyamma Vs the Manager

Vanajakshi Vs Gagan Enterprises

Krishnegowda Vs Manu C D

Smt Anusuyamma Vs the Managing Director