Partly allowed

Prameela v. Kiribakaran

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2023MFA/4428/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a first appeal regarding motor vehicle accident compensation. The Court modified the Tribunal's award to enhance compensation based on revised notional income and prevailing wage rates, granting additional dependency, consortium, and estate losses.

What did the court decide?

Claimants awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.7,95,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition.

Prameela Vs Kiribakaran — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:42650-DB MFA No. 4428/2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.4428/2021 (MV-D)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

PRAMEELA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS W/O. LATE A.SRINIVAS

¶12

KUM.S.CHANDANA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS D/O. LATE A.SRINIVAS

¶13

RATHNAMMA

¶14

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS W/O. LATE ANJAPPA

¶15

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

ALL ARE R/AT DEVARAYASAMUDRA MULBAGAL TALUK NOW R/AT SEESANDRA VILLAGE KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101 …APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY MS. SWATI G HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

KIRIBAKARAN S/O RAJ MAJOR R/AT E173, HBR 2^ND BLOCK KAMARAJANAGAR, NAGAVARA BENGALURU - 560 045

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:42650-DB MFA No. 4428/2021

¶22

UNITED INDIA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUGUNA NURSING HOME BUILDING NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND ANTHARAGANGE ROAD KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101

¶23

REP. BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI H.C.VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH V/C/O DATED 21.02.2022)

¶25

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.01.2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MACT, KOLAR IN MVC NO.314/2018 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent

¶29

of both side, the same is taken up for disposal.

¶30

Heard both side.

¶31

“Whether the compensation awarded to the appellants/claimants by the Tribunal under the impugned award is just”? is the question involved in this case.

¶32

The appellants were the claimants and the respondents were the respondents in M.V.C.No.314/2018 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, MACT,

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:42650-DB MFA No. 4428/2021

¶35

Kolar. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶36

Claimant Nos.1 to 3 were the widow, minor daughter and aged mother of one A.Srinivas. On 16.12.2018 at 6.30 p.m. when the deceased Srinivas was walking near Devarayasamudra gate on Kolar-Mulbagal Road, Maruthi Car bearing No.KA-05-MM-1616 hit him and caused him grievous injuries. Due to the said injuries, he died at the spot. At the relevant time, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the registered owner and Insurer of the car bearing No.KA-05-MM-1616 and V.Subramani was the driver of the offending vehicle. On the basis of the complaint filed against him, Mulbagal Rural police registered the first information report as per Ex.P1 against the driver of the said car. On investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the driver of the car for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶37

The claimants filed M.V.C.No.314/2018 against the respondents claiming that the accident and consequential death occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing No.KA-05-MM-1616. They

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:42650-DB MFA No. 4428/2021

¶40

further contended that Srinivas was earning Rs.20,000/- per month from masonry work and they were all dependent on his income. They further claimed that due to the death of Srinivasa they have suffered damages and claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the respondents.

¶41

Respondent No.1 did not contest the matter before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 contested the petition denying actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the car, age, occupation, income of the deceased and its liability to pay compensation.

¶42

On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues. To substantiate the claim of the claimants, claimant No.3 was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. The respondents did not adduce any evidence.

¶43

The Tribunal on hearing the parties by the impugned judgment held that the accident and consequential death of Srinivas occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing No.KA-05-MM-1616. The Tribunal relying on Ex.P7 the postmortem report considered the age of the deceased as 44 years, notionally

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:42650-DB MFA No. 4428/2021

¶46

assessed his income at Rs.7,500/-, added 25% of the same by way of future prospects, deducted 1/3^rd of the income for the personal expenses of the deceased, applied 14 multiplier and awarded compensation of Rs.10,50,000/- on the head of loss of dependency.

¶47

The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of Rs.11,20,000/- on different heads as per the table below:

¶48

Sl.	Particulars	Compensation
No.		Amount in Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	10,50,000/-
2.	Conventional heads	70,000/-
	Total	11,20,000/-

¶49

The respondents have not challenged the findings

¶50

of the Tribunal regarding occurrence of the accident, death due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the car, age of the deceased, relationship of the claimants with the deceased or in other grounds.

¶51

The claimants challenge the award on the ground that the notional income considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the compensation awarded on other heads is also on the lower side.

¶52

As per Ex.P7, on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 44 years. There was no proof of actual

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:42650-DB MFA No. 4428/2021

¶55

income of the deceased. Therefore the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income notionally. The accident has taken place in the year 2018. Considering the age and occupation of the deceased, prevailing wage rates and cost of living during the relevant time, notional income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,500/- per month is on the lower side. Reasonably his monthly income can be assessed at Rs.12,500/- per month.

¶56

Since the deceased had three dependants, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation¹ , 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and his contribution to the family would be 2/3^rd of his income. Therefore his contribution to the family comes to Rs.8,333.33 rounded to Rs.8,333/-. (12,500 x 2/3).

¶57

As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi² and considering the age and occupation of the deceased, 25% of the income has to be super added to the income of the deceased by way of future prospects which

¶58

1 AIR 2009 SC 3104

¶59

2 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:42650-DB MFA No. 4428/2021

¶62

comes to Rs.8,333 x 25% = Rs.2,083/-. Therefore monthly contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.10,416/- (Rs.8,333/- + Rs.2,083/-).

¶63

As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case referred to supra the applicable multiplier for his age is 14. Therefore, the compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.17,49,888/- rounded of to Rs.17,50,000/-. (Rs.10,416 x 12 x 14).

¶64

The claimants are widow, daughter and mother of the deceased. As per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram³ they are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each on the head of consortium with escalation of 10% which comes to Rs.1,32,000/-.

¶65

As per the aforesaid judgments, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and transportation with escalation at 10%. Thus the

¶66

3 2018 (18) SCC 130

¶67

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:42650-DB MFA No. 4428/2021

¶68

compensation payable on the said heads come to

¶69

Rs.33,000/-. Therefore just compensation payable to the

¶70

claimants in this case is as follows:

¶71

Sl. No.	Particulars	Compensation Amount in Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	17,50,000/-
2.	Loss of consortium	1,32,000/-
3.	Loss of estate & funeral expenses	33,000/-
	Total	19,15,000/-
	Less awarded by the Tribunal	11,20,000/-
	Enhanced compensation	7,95,000/-

¶72

Respondent No.2 being insurer of the vehicle is

¶73

liable to pay the enhanced compensation with interest at 6% per annum. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

The appeal is partly allowed.

¶76

The award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:

¶77

(i) The claimants are entitled to enhanced

¶78

compensation of Rs.7,95,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization. (ii) Respondent No.2 being the Insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the Tribunal on adjusting the compensation already deposited, if any, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶79

¶80

NC: 2023:KHC:42650-DB MFA No. 4428/2021

¶81

(iii) The award of the Tribunal with regard to

¶82

apportionment and investment is maintained.

¶83

(iv) Registry shall transmit the trial Court records to

¶84

the Tribunal forthwith.

¶85