Partly allowed

Smt. Devamani v. Dobeerman Security and

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2023MFA/890/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs.11,51,000 to Rs.13,69,900. The Court applied 40% future prospects to increase the deceased's notional income to Rs.12,600/month, resulting in enhanced dependency loss. Interest on the enhanced amount was fixed at 6% p.a. while retaining 8% on the original award.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs.2,18,900; interest on enhanced amount fixed at 6% p.a. from date of petition.

Smt. Devamani Vs Dobeerman Security and — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:36749-DB MFA No. 890 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 5650 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 890 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶10

C/W

¶11

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5650 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶12

IN MFA NO.890/2019:

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

SMT. DEVAMANI W/O VENKATARAJA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶15

VENKATARAJA NAIKA S/O DASA NAIKA

¶16

Digitally signed by D K BHASKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶18

BOTH R/AT KALLATTI VILLAGE SIDDAPURA COLONY H.D.KOTE, MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶19

…APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR - ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

DOBEERMAN SECURITY AND DEDUCTIVE SERVICE 191, AICOBO NAGAR BTM LAYOUT, 9^TH MAIN 2^ND CROSS, II STAGE BENGALURU-560 076 (OWNER –KA-05 MK 5713).

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:36749-DB MFA No. 890 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 5650 of 2018

¶25

2. THE MANAGER

¶26

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD SRINATH SALES MANAGER RETAILS DIRECT, 10^TH MAIN 3^RD BLOCK, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004 LOCAL ADDRESS OPPOSITE TO RURAL KSRTC BUS STAND MYSURU-570 015. (INSURER-KA-05-MK-5713)

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI.ASHOK N PATIL – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.10.2023, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶29

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AGAINST THE AWARD PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT A MEARGRE SUM OF RS.11,51,000/- AS AGAINST THE AWARD CLAIM BY THE APPELLANT A SUM OF RS.36,50,000/AGAINST THE RESPONDENT.

¶30

IN MFA NO.5650/2018:

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SRINATH SALES MANAGER RETAILS DIRECT, 10^TH MAIN 3^RD BLOCK, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 011

¶33

ALSO AT RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED EAST WING, 5^TH FLOOR, NO.28 CENTENARY BUILDING M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL.

¶34

…APPELLANT

¶35

(BY SRI.ASHOK N. PATIL – ADVOCATE)

¶36

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36749-DB MFA No. 890 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 5650 of 2018

¶37

AND:

¶38

SMT. DEVAMANI W/O VENKATARAJA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶39

VENKATARAJA NAIKA S/O DASA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶40

BOTH R/AT KALLATTI VILLAGE SIDDAPURA COLONY H.D.KOTE MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶41

DOBERMAN SECURITY AND DETECTIVE SERVICES NO.191, AICOBO NAGAR BTM LAYOUT, 9^TH MAIN ROAD SECOND CROSS, II-STAGE BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI SYED ABDUL SABOOR – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2;

¶44

VIDE ORDER DATED 10.12.2018, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶45

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.03.2018 IN MVC NO.413/2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT MYSURU.

¶46

THESE MFAs’, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, UMESH M ADIGA .J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:36749-DB MFA No. 890 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 5650 of 2018

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

MFA No.890/2019 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and MFA No.5650/2018 is filed by the insurer challenging the quantum of compensation as well as interest awarded by the Tribunal. Both these appeals arise against the judgment and award in MVC No.413/2016 on the file of Prl.Judge, Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge at Mysuru (hereinafter referred as ‘ Tribunal’ ) dated 23.03.2018.

¶50

This matter is slated for hearing on interlocutory application. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties, the matter is taken for final disposal.

¶51

We refer the parties as per their ranks before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

¶52

It is the case of the claimants that they are the parents of deceased Ramanna. He died in a vehicle accident, that had taken place on 29.12.2015 at around

¶53

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36749-DB MFA No. 890 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 5650 of 2018

¶54

12.30 noon, due to the rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing Regn.No.KA-05 MK 5713 on Hunsur Road by its driver. It is further case of the claimants that deceased was aged about 28 years; He was working as Mason and earning Rs.15,000/p.m. and the claimants were depending upon the earnings of the deceased. With these reasons they prayed to award compensation of Rs.36,50,000/-.

¶55

Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offended car. It has denied all the contents of the claim petition and further stated that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of policy of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the car. With these reasons, the insurer prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶56

From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

¶57

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:36749-DB MFA No. 890 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 5650 of 2018

¶58

It appears there were two claim petitions arising out of common accident in MVC No.413/2016 and MVC

¶59

No.417/2016 pending before Tribunal; The Tribunal clubbed both the matters and recorded common evidence.

¶60

Claimants examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked

¶61

Exs.P1 to P25. Respondents examined RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2.

¶62

The Tribunal, after hearing both side and on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record, by its impugned judgment, awarded compensation of

¶63

Rs.11,51,000/- under the following heads:

¶64

Towards loss of Financial Dependency	Rs.	10,71,000/-
Towards loss of love and affection	Rs.	50,000/-
Towards loss of estate	Rs.	15,000/-
Towards funeral expenses	Rs.	15,000/-
TOTAL	Rs.	11,51,000/-

¶65

The Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 28 years; His income as Rs.10,500/- per month and applied multiplier as 17 and deducted 50% of his income

¶66

¶67

NC: 2023:KHC:36749-DB MFA No. 890 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 5650 of 2018

¶68

towards personal expenses since the deceased was unmarried. On that basis, calculated the compensation under the head ‘Loss of dependency’.

¶69

We have heard the arguments of learned Advocates appearing for both the parties.

¶70

The learned Advocate for claimants has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager, the Tribunal has not assessed the income of the deceased properly, therefore, prayed for enhancement of compensation.

¶71

The learned Advocate for insurer has submitted that the Tribunal has taken income of the deceased as Rs.10,500/- without any basis. Even for the sake of arguments, if the income of the deceased is assessed on the basis of the schedule of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, then notional income of victim could be Rs.9,000/- since accident was taken place during 2015. The Tribunal could have applied the same principle in the

¶72

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:36749-DB MFA No. 890 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 5650 of 2018

¶73

present case. He further submitted that the Tribunal had awarded interest at 8% p.a. which is on higher side. Therefore, prayed to recalculate the same at 6% p.a. and to dispose of the appeal.

¶74

It is not in dispute that deceased Ramanna met with accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offended car bearing Regn No.KA-05 MK 5713 by its driver and died due to the said accident. It is also not in dispute that age of the deceased was 28 years and multiplier applicable to the facts of the case is 17. It is also not in dispute that deceased was unmarried and 50% of his income requires to be deducted towards personal expenses. The main dispute is pertaining to the income of the deceased.

¶75

As per the case of the claimants, deceased was

¶76

working as Mason and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. However, the claimants were unable to prove that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. Therefore, the Tribunal has assessed notional income as Rs.10,500/-. As rightly

¶77

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:36749-DB MFA No. 890 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 5650 of 2018

¶78

submitted by the learned Advocate for the insurer, there is no basis to assess the said income of the deceased. Normally, while settlement of disputes before the Lok Adalath, income of a victim of an accident that had taken place during the year 2015, is assessed as Rs.9,000/p.m. The same could be applied to the facts of the present case.

¶79

The Tribunal has not added future prospects of the deceased to his earnings. As held in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS.

¶80

PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS¹ , 40% of his income has to be added towards future prospects since the age of the deceased is 28 years at the time of accident. 50% of the earning of deceased has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the compensation under the head

¶81

‘loss of dependency’ is as under:

¶82

Income of deceased	Rs. 9,000.00 p.m
Add: 40% future prospects	Rs. 3,600.00
	Rs. 12,600.00
Less: 50% personal expenses	Rs. 6,300.00
	Rs. 6,300.00
6300 x 12 x 17 =	Rs.12,85,200.00

¶83

1. AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶84

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:36749-DB MFA No. 890 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 5650 of 2018

¶85

The Tribunal has awarded compensation under

¶86

the conventional heads at Rs.80,000/-. In view of the law

¶87

laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi referred supra and also in an unreported judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.

¶88

LTD. vs. BHAGAT SINGH RAWAT & ORS² the

¶89

compensation under the conventional heads have to be awarded. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for following amount of compensation:

¶90

Loss of Dependency	Rs.	12,85,200/-
Loss of Consortium	Rs.	48,400/-
Loss of Estate	Rs.	18,150/-
Funeral expenses	Rs.	18,150/-
TOTAL	Rs.	13,69,900/-

¶91

Claimants are entitled for enhancement of Rs.2,18,900/-.

¶92

The submission of the learned Advocate for the insurer regarding reduction of interest from 8% to 6% can not be considered by this Court. Exercising the discretionary power under Section 34 of CPC, the Tribunal

¶93

2. CIVIL APPEAL NOs.2410-2412/2023 D.D. 27.03.2023

¶94

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:36749-DB MFA No. 890 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 5650 of 2018

¶95

had awarded interest at 8% p.a. Therefore, the said interest shall remain as it is. However, the enhanced amount of compensation would carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its payment.

¶96

In view of the aforesaid reasons and findings, we

¶97

answer the question partly in the affirmative and pass the following:

¶98

ORDER

¶99

MFA No.890/2019 and MFA No.1550/2018 are disposed of.

¶100

The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.413/2016 dated 23.03.2018 is modified as under:

¶101

(a) Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.13,69,900/- as against Rs.11,51,000/- awarded by the Tribunal;

¶102

(b) they are entitled for enhancement of Rs.2,18,900/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum

¶103

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:36749-DB MFA No. 890 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 5650 of 2018

¶104

on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till its payment.

¶105

¶106

said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶107

(d) Apportionment, deposit and release of

¶108

compensation amount is as ordered by Tribunal.

¶109

(e) The amount of compensation deposited by the appellant – insurer in MFA No.5650/2018 shall be transmitted to the Tribunal to be released in favour of the claimants.

¶110

Sd/JUDGE

¶111

Sd/JUDGE

¶112

DKB

Smt. Devamani v. Dobeerman Security and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Devamani v. Dobeerman Security and

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

Abdul Nazeer Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri Ganeshappa K Vs State of Karnataka

Smt v R Manjula Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mahendra T M Vs Sri Shankara M

Smt Manjula C Vs the Divisional Controller

Smt. Chaya Vs Sri S Pradeep