Partly allowed

Smt Veena S G v. Sri Shivakumar

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2023MFA/5978/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Miscellaneous First Appeal allowed in part, enhancing compensation from Rs.11.93 lakhs to Rs.30.75 lakhs in a motor accident claim due to re-evaluation of the deceased's income, multiplier, and future prospects based on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Compulsion liability enhanced to Rs.30,75,400/-; insurer to deposit amount within four weeks.

Smt Veena S G Vs Sri Shivakumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB MFA No. 5978/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5978/2022 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT VEENA S G

¶11

W/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY B M NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶12

AMRUTHA B N

¶13

D/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY B M NOW AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS

¶14

CHINTHANA B N S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY B M NOW AGED ABOUT 04 YEARS

¶15

SRI MARIYAPPA S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH NOW AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶16

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

¶17

SMT SHIVAMMA W/O MARIYAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶18

2^ND & 3^RD MINOR APPELLANTS REP. BY 1^ST APPELLANT AS THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER

¶19

A1 TO A3 ARE R/AT SUGURU VILLAGE AT POST NONAVINAKERE HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶20

A4 & A5 ARE

¶21

R/AT BHYRAPURA VILLAGE KUPPALU POST, KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT …APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY MS.SUSHMITHA G, ADVOCATE)

¶23

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB MFA No. 5978/2022

¶24

AND:

¶25

SRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O NARAYANASWAMY NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT KAREHALLI VILLAGE AT POST, BAGUR HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 131

¶26

THE MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL INSURANCE NO 237, GURURAJ COMPLEX NEAR CORPORATION BANK, B M ROAD CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 116 …RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH V/C/O DTD:26.08.2022)

¶28

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.08.2021 PASSED BY V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR IN MVC NO.1313/2019 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶29

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

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Though the matter is listed for admission, with the

¶32

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

¶33

“Whether the compensation awarded to the

¶34

appellants/claimants under the impugned award is just”? is the question involved in this case.

¶35

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB MFA No. 5978/2022

¶36

The appellants were the claimants and the

¶37

respondents were the respondents in M.V.C.No.1313/2019 on the file of V Additional District & Sessions Judge, MACT, Tiptur. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶38

Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are minor children and claimant Nos.4 and 5 are father and mother of the deceased Narasimha Murthy B.M. On 22.03.2019 at 6.45 p.m. when Narasimha Murthy was riding his motorcycle bearing No.KA-44-V-8630 along with pillion rider by name Mahalingaiah near Aladahalli gate, Nonavinakere Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, goods auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-06-C-5297 hit the said motorcycle. In the accident, both Narasimha Murthy and the pillion rider suffered injuries. Narasimha Murthy was shifted to the Government Hospital, Tiptur and from there to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. On 24.03.2019 at 1.00 p.m. while under treatment, Narasimha Murthy succumbed to the injuries. At the relevant time, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the registered owner and Insurer of Auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-06-C-5297.

¶39

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB MFA No. 5978/2022

¶40

The claimants filed M.V.C.No.1313/2019 against

¶41

the respondents claiming that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-06-C-5297. They further contended that Narasimha Murthy was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by doing agricultural work and business, they were all dependent on his income. Thus they claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the respondents.

¶42

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contested the petition denying actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-06-C-5297, age, occupation, income of the deceased and their liability to pay compensation. They contended that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased himself.

¶43

On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues. To substantiate the claim of the claimants, claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P21 were marked on their side. The respondents did not adduce any evidence.

¶44

The Tribunal on hearing the parties and relying on

¶45

the charge sheet and the other police records which are at

¶46

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB MFA No. 5978/2022

¶47

Exs.P1 to P6 held that, the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-06-C-5297.

¶48

The Tribunal relying on Ex.P7 the postmortem report considered age of the deceased as 33 years. The Tribunal further held that the claimants failed to establish the occupation and income of the deceased as alleged and assessed his income notionally at Rs.7,000/- per month. The Tribunal deducted 1/4^th of his income towards his personal and living expenses, applied 16 multiplier and awarded compensation of Rs.10,08,000/- on the head of loss of dependency.

¶49

The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of

¶50

Rs.11,93,000/- on different heads as per the table below:

¶51

Sl. No.	Particulars	Compensation Amount in Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	10,08,000/-
2.	Transportation, Funeral expenses and Obsequies ceremony	25,000/-
3.	Towards Consortium	25,000/-
4.	Towards loss of love and affection	1,00,000/-
5.	Towards loss of estate	35,000/-
	Total	11,93,000/-

¶52

Smt.Sushmitha.G, learned Counsel for the

¶53

claimants reiterating the grounds of the appeal and relying

¶54

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB MFA No. 5978/2022

¶55

on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla

¶56

Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation¹ , National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi² and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram³ submits that the compensation has to be enhanced.

¶57

Sri B.Pradeep, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 justifies the impugned award on the ground that the findings of the Tribunal was in accordance with the evidence adduced before the Tribunal.

¶58

Analysis

¶59

Challenging the findings of the Tribunal regarding actionable negligence and assessment of the age of the deceased, the respondents have not preferred any appeal. Therefore the findings on those aspects have attained finality.

¶60

So far as the income of the deceased, though the

¶61

claimants contended that he was doing agricultural work and business, no concrete evidence was adduced about the same. Therefore the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income

¶62

1 AIR 2009 SC 3104

¶63

2 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶64

3 2018 (18) SCC 130

¶65

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB MFA No. 5978/2022

¶66

notionally. The accident occurred in the year 2019. The deceased was aged 33 years. As there is nothing to show that he had any disability in earning, considering the prevailing wage rates and cost of living during the relevant period, the Tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.14,000/- per month.

¶67

As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma’s case referred to supra the deceased had five dependants, therefore 1/4^th of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Therefore 3/4^th of Rs.14,000/- comes to Rs.10,500/- (Rs.14,000/- x ¾).

¶68

Having regard to the age of the deceased, nature of his work and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra, 40% of the income of the deceased has to be superadded towards future prospects which comes to Rs.10,500/- x 40%= 4,200/-. Therefore the monthly contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.14,700/- per month (Rs.10,500 + 4,200/-).

¶69

As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma’s case referred to supra the applicable

¶70

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB MFA No. 5978/2022

¶71

multiplier for his age is 16. Therefore, the compensation

¶72

payable on the head of loss of dependency comes to (Rs.14,700/- x 12 x 16) Rs.28,22,400/- .

¶73

The claimants being the wife, minor children and

¶74

parents of the deceased were entitled to compensation on the head of loss of consortium. As per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case and Nanu

¶75

Ram’s case referred to supra, they are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each with escalation of 10% which comes to Rs.2,20,000/- on the head of consortium.

¶76

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%. The compensation payable on the said heads comes to Rs.33,000/-. Therefore just compensation payable to the claimants in this case is as

¶77

follows:

¶78

Sl. No.	Particulars	Compensation Amount in Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	28,22,400/-
2.	Loss of consortium	2,20,000/-
3.	Loss of estate & funeral expenses	33,000/-
	Total	30,75,400/-
	Less awarded by the Tribunal	11,93,000/-
	Enhanced compensation	18,82,400/-

¶79

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB MFA No. 5978/2022

¶80

Respondent No.2 being insurer of the vehicle is

¶81

liable to compensate the same. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 7% per annum. Even that was not challenged by the respondents. Respondent No.2 is liable to pay interest upto the date of the award at 7% and on enhanced compensation at 6% per annum. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶82

ORDER

¶83

The appeal is partly allowed. The award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:

¶84

(i) The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.18,82,400/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a.

¶85

(ii) Respondent No.2 being the Insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶86

(iii) The award of the Tribunal with regard to apportionment and investment is maintained.

¶87