Allowed

Jyothi v. the Manager

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2023MFA/5072/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a miscellaneous first appeal, set aside part of the Tribunal's award for aggravated damages in a motor accident case. It directed enhancement of compensation based on correct notional income calculations and removed the erroneous head of 'loss of guidance', ordering the insurer to deposit the enhanced sum with interest.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award is modified to enhance compensation by Rs.8,06,100/- with interest at 6% p.a., directed to be deposited by the insurer within six weeks.

Jyothi Vs the Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23910 MFA No. 5072 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5072 OF 2017 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

JYOTHI, W/O LATE RAVI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶10

MOHAN B R, S/O LATE RAVI, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS.

¶11

SOORYA B R, S/O LATE RAVI, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS.

¶12

THE APPELLANT NO. 2 AND 3 ARE BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER IS 1ST APPELLANT HEREIN JYOTHI.

¶13

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

¶14

YASHODAMMA, W/O LATE SUBBANNA @ SUBBASHETTY,

¶15

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶16

ALL ARE R/AT: BYLAKUPPE, PIRIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DIST. PRESENTLY R/AT: THANNIRUHALLA, HASSAN-573201

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI MADHU.M.T, ADVOCATE FOR SRI GIRISH.B.BALADARE, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:23910 MFA No. 5072 of 2017

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., KRUTHIKA ARCADE, N.R.CIRCLE, HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN-573 201.

¶23

SHIVANNA, S/O ERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT: RAJENAHALLI VILLAGE, TEJUR POST, HASSAN TQ. AND DIST.-573 201.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W V/O DATED 03.12.2018)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1050/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 5th ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AND ADDL.MACT AT HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

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

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is against the judgment and award in MVC.No.1050/2015 by the learned 5^th Additional District and Sessions Judge, MACT, Hassan dated 01.02.2017, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,93,000/-.

¶30

The factual matrix is that on 18.06.2015, the deceased Ravi and another were riding on the motorcycle

¶31

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:23910 MFA No. 5072 of 2017

¶32

bearing registration No.KA-18-K-2615 on Hassan-Belur Road. At about 05.15 pm, a Tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA13-A.6298 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motorcycle of the petitioner from the back side. As a result, the deceased Ravi sustained injuries to the head and he was shifted to hospital but on the way he succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners are the dependents of the deceased Ravi. They contended that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month working as an agriculturist and coolie. Due to the accidental injuries, they lost their support and therefore, they be awarded adequate compensation.

¶33

On issuance of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed objections to the petition. The respondent No.1 owner of the vehicle denied the petition averments and contended that the vehicle was covered under the insurance policy issued by the respondent No.2 and therefore, the liability be fastened upon the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2-Insurer contended the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant, imaginary and speculative and that the terms and conditions of the policy

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:23910 MFA No. 5072 of 2017

¶36

were violated and as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶37

Appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and

¶38

also clubbed the matter with MVC.No.1051/2015 which was filed by the pillion rider. A common evidence was lead and the appellant No.1 herein was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. No evidence was lead on behalf of the respondents.

¶39

After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,93,000/- under the different heads as below:

¶40

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Loss of dependency	7,68,000/-
Funeral Expenses	25,000/-
Loss of consortium	1,00,000/-
Loss of guidance to minor children	1,00,000/-
Loss of estate	1,00,000/-
TOTAL	10,93,000/-

¶41

Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the

¶42

petitioners have approached this Court contending that the Tribunal erred in not considering the 'future prospects' of the

¶43

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23910 MFA No. 5072 of 2017

¶44

deceased and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is abysmally low and meager.

¶45

On issuance of notice by this Court, respondent No.1-Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and notice to owner of the vehicle was dispensed with. The Tribunal records have been secured and arguments by both the sides were heard.

¶46

The petitioners contended that the deceased Ravi was aged 35 years as on the date of accident and he was working as an agriculturist and due to the death of the deceased Ravi, family of the deceased has suffered financially and the petitioners are the dependents and therefore, adequate compensation should have been awarded by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the notional income considered by the Tribunal is also not proper.

¶47

It is evident that the Tribunal has taken a sum of Rs.6,000/- as notional income in the absence of any other cogent evidence to prove the income of the deceased. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settlement of the disputes before the Lok-Adalat

¶48

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:23910 MFA No. 5072 of 2017

¶49

prescribed a notional income of Rs.9,000/- for the year 2015. 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 considered at Rs.9,000/per month.

¶50

The deceased has left behind him four dependents. Therefore, 1/4^th has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, the 'loss of dependency' is calculated by considering the 'future prospects' at 40% of Rs.9,000/-, which comes to Rs.3,600/-. Therefore, the multiplicand is considered at Rs.12,600/- (Rs.9,000/- + Rs.3,600/-) and the 'loss of dependency' is calculated as Rs.12,600/- X 12 X 16 X 3/4 = Rs.18,14,400/- by adopting a multiplier '16' for the age if 35 years.

¶51

In addition to the above, the petitioners also entitled for a sum of Rs.48,400/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection/consortium' and a sum of Rs.18,150/- each towards the 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of estate'.

¶52

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:23910 MFA No. 5072 of 2017

¶53

The grant of Rs.1,00,000/- by the Tribunal under

¶54

the head of 'loss of guidance to minor children' is not permissible in the light of the directions contained in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI AND

¶55

OTHERS¹ .

¶56

Thus, the petitioners are entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below:

¶57

PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN RS.)
Loss of dependency	18,14,400/-
Loss of love and affection/consortium	48,400/-
Loss of Estate	18,150/-
Loss of Funeral Expenses	18,150/-
TOTAL	18,99,100/-
Less awarded by Tribunal	10,93,000/-
Enhancement	8,06,100/-

¶58

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.8,06,100/- with interest and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶59

1 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC:23910 MFA No. 5072 of 2017

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶64

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the

¶65

Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.8,06,100/- 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.

¶66

(iii) The respondent No.1/Insurance company is directed

¶67

to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶68

(iv) The compensation regarding apportionment and

¶69

fixed deposit as ordered by the Tribunal remain unaltered.

¶70

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

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

NR/-

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 97

Jyothi v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyothi v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shivahuchhaiah Vs the Managing Director

Divisional Controller Vs Smt. Sanamma

Ravikumar Vs Narayana G

Lakshmamma @ Jayalakshmamma Vs the Manager

Chandra Mendon Vs Ravindra Naik

Sri Dharmegowda G C Vs the Divisional Controller