Partly allowed

Lakshmi @ Lakshmi Bai v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2023MFA/4867/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Benchmark MFA No. 4867 of 2020 enhanced compensation from Rs. 2.80 lakhs to Rs. 14.30 lakhs in a motor accident case involving a deceased pedestrian engaged in milk vending, applying Supreme Court precedents on income assessment and consortium.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs. 14,30,800/-; respondent directed to deposit balance amount.

Lakshmi @ Lakshmi Bai Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43098 MFA No. 4867 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4867 OF 2020 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

LAKSHMI @ LAKSHMI BAI W/O LATE ESHAPPA @ ESHAPPA BHAJANTRI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶8

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

NAGAMMA D/O LATE ESHAPPA @ ESHAPPA BHAJANTRI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 470 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS NEHRU ROAD, BANGARAPPANAGAR R R NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560098 PERMANENT ADDRESS DANDOTI AT POST CHITTAPURA TALUK GULBARGA DIST-585211 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BMTC, SARIGE BHAVANA K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560027. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SOHANI A HOLLA., ADVOCATE)

¶12

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43098 MFA No. 4867 of 2020

¶13

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 70/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBERMACT, C/c XXII ASCJ AND ACMM, BENGALURU (SCCH-24), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶14

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

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor 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 23.01.2020 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.70/2019.

¶17

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 18.12.2018 at about 08.00 a.m., the deceased Chandrakanth was pedestrian on footpath of Mysuru Road and when he was going near Bharath Petrol Bunk, Hosaguddadahalli, Bengaluru City, at that time, the driver of BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-57-F-294 drove the same in high speed, rash and negligent manner and all of a sudden came from Bapujinagar towards

¶18

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43098 MFA No. 4867 of 2020

¶19

tollgate and dashed against compound of Bharath Petrol Bunk and moved further and dashed against three persons viz., Chandrakanth, Yadukumar and Rajashekar, who were pedestrian on the footpath. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased was struck under the said BMTC sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶20

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

¶21

On service of summons, the respondent 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.

¶22

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43098 MFA No. 4867 of 2020

¶23

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 got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 but no document was marked. 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.2,80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶24

The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the

¶25

following contentions:

¶26

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43098 MFA No. 4867 of 2020

¶27

a) Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was

¶28

aged about 16 years at the time of the accident and he was studying in I PUC and also doing milk vending/supply and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month and contributing his entire income for maintenance of their family and for his studies. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the notional income of the deceased as merely as Rs.30,000/per annum.

¶29

b) Secondly, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CHETANA AND OTHERS vs. BABUJI M. AND OTHERS

¶30

reported in 2021 ACJ 1146 has held that there is no prohibition under the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 that the adolescent of 17 years to involve in a milk vending business. The Division Bench considering the said Act, has considered the Notional Income and also awarded the future prospects.

¶31

c) Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V-

¶32

NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782] , each of the claimants are

¶33

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:43098 MFA No. 4867 of 2020

¶34

entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶35

d) Lastly, 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.

¶36

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Corporation has raised the following counter-contentions: a) Firstly, at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 16 years studying in I PUC and he was a minor and non-earning member in the family. The Tribunal after considering the material available on record and referring the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of KISHAN GOPAL AND ANOTHER –V- LALA AND OTHERS (2013 AIR SCW 5037) , has awarded just and reasonable compensation.

¶37

b) Secondly, the claimants have not proved that the deceased was doing milk vending and therefore, the

¶38

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:43098 MFA No. 4867 of 2020

¶39

claimants are not entitled for compensation for future prospects.

¶40

c) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and referring the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘ KISHAN GOPAL’ (supra), considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶42

It is not in dispute that Chandrakanth died in the road traffic accident occurred on 18.12.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶43

The specific case of the claimants is that the deceased was aged about 16 years as on the date of accident and he was studying in I PUC and also doing milk vending/supply and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month

¶44

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:43098 MFA No. 4867 of 2020

¶45

and contributing his entire income for maintenance of their

¶46

family and for his studies.

¶47

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of

¶48

‘ CHETANA’ (supra) has held as follows:

¶49

“10. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 17 years as on the date of the accident. He might not be an adult but he cannot be considered as a child. He has to be considered as an adolescent. Section 2 (i) and (ii) of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") defines as follows:

¶50

"(i) "adolescent" means a person who has completed his fourteenth year of age abut has not completed his eighteenth year; "(ii) "child" means a person who has not completed his fourteenth year of age or such age as may be specified in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009), whichever is more."

¶51

11. Section 3 of the Act prohibits employment of a child in certain occupations and processes. The said Act does not prohibit the adolescent of 17

¶52

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:43098 MFA No. 4867 of 2020

¶53

years to involve in a milk vending business. The deceased and his family are from rural area and it is common for a person of 17 years to be involved in milk vending or similar occupations. The Tribunal has completely lost sight of this fact and the reasoning is contrary to and in the teeth of the statutory provisions.

¶54

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 while determining the multiplier/multiplicand in accidental claims, has taken into consideration persons from the age group of 15 years and onwards while fixing the multiplier. If the reasoning of the Tribunal is taken as correct, this Court would be doing violence to a well settled position in law. The erudite judgment has not only stood the test of reason but has also stood the test of time. In fact, the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court, has approved and upheld the methodology settled in Sarla Verma's case to calculate the multiplier/multiplicand. The reasoning of the Tribunal, virtually renders otiose the methodology settled in Sarla Verma's case and approved by the Constitutional Bench in the

¶55

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:43098 MFA No. 4867 of 2020

¶56

case of National Insurance Company Ltd., V. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC).”

¶57

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the monthly income of the deceased has to be assessed Rs.9,000/-. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down

¶58

by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS

¶59

[AIR 2017 SC 5157] . Thus, the monthly income comes to

¶60

Rs.12,600/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor at the time of the accident, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.6,300/-. The deceased was aged about 16 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘18’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.13,60,800/(Rs.6,300 1218) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶61

11 -

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC:43098 MFA No. 4867 of 2020

¶63

In addition, the claimants are entitled to

¶64

compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’.

¶65

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant No.1, mother of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’.

¶66

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

¶67

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	13,60,800
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of Filial consortium	40,000
Total	14,30,800

¶68

12 -

¶69

NC: 2023:KHC:43098 MFA No. 4867 of 2020

¶70

16. In the result, I pass the following order:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶73

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶74

c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

¶75

Rs.14,30,800/- as against Rs.2,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶76

d) The Corporation is directed to deposit the remaining compensation amount after deducting Rs.2,00,000/- which has already been deposited by the Corporation, 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 receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

¶78

¶79

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 32

Lakshmi @ Lakshmi Bai v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi @ Lakshmi Bai 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Nawaz Vs P v Govindacharyulu

Smt G Nagarathnamma Vs Mr M v Chandrashekarappa

Mr Kaleemulla Khan Vs Mr Shafiquddin Shariff

S G Umesha Vs Ilyas T M

K Sharmas @ Khan Sharmas Vs M/S Badave Engg. Ltd.

Sri Lakshmana Vs Sri Pratish D