Partly allowed

Sri Venkatesh S/O Chennappa Shet v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2024MFA/100714/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Additional First Appeal corrected the compensation quantum for death in a motor vehicle accident. The High Court set the notional income at Rs.10,250/- per month instead of Rs.6,000/-, added 40% for future prospects, and awarded total compensation of Rs.16,59,800/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.16,59,800/- with interest at 9% per annum.

Sri Venkatesh S/O Chennappa Shet Vs the Managing… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8086-DB MFA No. 100714 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100714 OF 2024 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI VENKATESH S/O. CHENNAPPA SHET, AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. PARVATI TEMPLE GALLI, HUNGUND, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR (U.K.), PIN-581349.

¶9

SMT. SULOCHANA W/O. SRI VENKATESH SHET, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. PARVATI TEMPLE GALLI, HUNGUND,

¶10

TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR (U.K.), PIN-581349.

¶11

APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI DEEPAK MAGANUR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIJAYANAND ROADLINES, R/O. VARUR PUNE-BENGALURU ROAD, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD, PIN-581207.

¶16

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INSURANCE CO. DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.1, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD, PIN-580023.

¶17

RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI HANUMANTHREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI N.R. KUPPELLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.12.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.512/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, YELLAPUR, SITTING AT MUNDGOD, AND ETC.,

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8086-DB MFA No. 100714 of 2024

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both sides the appeal is taken up for disposal.

¶24

The appellants/claimants are in appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Sr. Civil Judge and AMACT, Yellapur, sitting at Mundgod (for short ‘Tribunal’) dated 12.12.2023 in M.V.C. No. 512/2019. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶25

The claimants-parents of the deceased filed claim petition u/S 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation for the death of Ms.Pooja Venkatesh Shet in a road traffic accident that took place on 25.05.2017 involving maxi cab bearing Reg. No. KA26-A-780 and VRL bus bearing Reg. No. KA-25-C-8844. It is stated that deceased was aged 21 years as on the date of accident and was earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month from Pigmy Collection and Rs.1,50,000/per annum from agriculture. It is stated that claimants were wholly dependent on the income of the deceased.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8086-DB MFA No. 100714 of 2024

¶27

On service of notice, the respondents appeared and filed their statement of objections. Respondent no.2-insurer denied the claim petition averments but admitted issuance of policy to the offending vehicle. Further it is contended that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Further, the insurer of the maxi cab bearing Reg. No. KA-26-A-780 was driving in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in occurrence of the accident. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶28

Before the Tribunal, claimant no.1, father of the deceased examined himself as PW1 apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.8. No evidence was let in on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal on scrutiny of the material on record, awarded a compensation of Rs.6,98,000/- with interest at 9% from the date of petition till realization. While awarding above compensation, Tribunal assessed notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, deducted 50% of the same towards personal expenses since deceased was a bachelor. The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, are before this Court in this appeal.

¶29

- 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8086-DB MFA No. 100714 of 2024

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month when the claimants stated that the deceased was earning more than Rs.9,000/- per month from Pigmi collection and Rs.1,50,000/- per annum from agriculture work. Further, learned counsel would submit that the notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the year 2017 is Rs.10,250/- per month. It is submitted that the notional income taken by the Tribunal is less than the notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Further, the Tribunal also failed to award compensation on the head of ‘future prospects’ which the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income. Further, the claimants are entitled for ‘consortium’ at Rs.40,000/- each. In that circumstance, he submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and prays for enhancing the same.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation which needs no interference. He further submitted that, in the absence of any material, the Tribunal

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8086-DB MFA No. 100714 of 2024

¶33

was justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month which needs no interference. Thus he prays for dismissing the appeal.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the trial court records, the following points would arise for our consideration.

¶35

1. Whether the notional income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is proper and correct?

¶36

2. Whether the claimants/appellants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects?

¶37

The accident that had taken place on 25.05.2017 involving the maxi cab bearing Reg. No. KA-26-A-780 and VRL bus bearing Reg. No. KA-25-C-8844 and the resultant death, is not in dispute in this appeal. The appellants are before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation. It is an admitted fact that the respondent-insurance company has not filed any appeal.

¶38

It is stated that deceased was earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month from pigmi collection and a sum of

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8086-DB MFA No. 100714 of 2024

¶40

Rs.1,50,000/- per annum from agriculture. But no material whatsoever is placed on record to establish income of the deceased. The Tribunal also committed an error in assessing notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month. The Karnataka State Legal Services Authority has fixed the notional income for the year 2017 at Rs.10,250/- per month. Thus, the appellantsclaimants stated that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is on the lower side. The appellants have not placed on record any material to establish his avocation or income. In the absence of material to assess or establish the income it is for the Tribunal to assess notional income. The accident is of the year 2017 and the notional income for the said year would be Rs.10,250/- per month. Accordingly, the said amount is taken as notional income of the deceased.

¶41

Admittedly, deceased was aged 23 years as on the date of accident. The Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others¹ has made it clear that wherever the deceased is aged less than 40 years, the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, as such, the claimants herein

¶42

1 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶43

- 7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8086-DB MFA No. 100714 of 2024

¶44

would be entitled for the same. The deceased was a bachelor and hence 50% of the net income to be deducted towards personal expenses. The appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘18’. Thus the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,49,800/towards loss of dependency, i.e., Rs.10,250/- + 4,100/- (40%) = 14,350/- less Rs.7,175/- (50% towards personal expenses)

¶45

= Rs.7,175/- x 12 x 18 (multiplier).

¶46

The claimants are parents of the deceased who would be entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma

¶47

General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru

¶48

Ram & Ors.² apart from Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and towards transportation and funeral expenses.

¶49

Thus the claimant is entitled for compensation as under:

¶50

1.	Loss of dependency	15,49,800.00
2.	Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 2)	80,000.00
3.	Loss of estate	15,000.00
4.	Funeral expenses	15,000.00
	Total	16,59,800.00

¶51

2 AIR ONLINE 2018 SC 1249

¶52

- 8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8086-DB MFA No. 100714 of 2024

¶53

Thus, the claimant/injured is entitled to total compensation of Rs.16,59,800/- as against Rs.6,98,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶54

In the result, we pass the following order.

¶55

ORDER

¶56

a) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶57

b) The impugned judgment and awarded passed by the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. Rs.16,59,800/- as against Rs.6,98,000/-awarded by the Tribunal.

¶58

c) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment;

¶59

d) Respondent-insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶60

e) On such deposit, the said amount shall be apportioned in favour of the claimants as per the award of the Tribunal.

¶61

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8086-DB MFA No. 100714 of 2024

¶62

f) Registry to transmit the records to the tribunal forthwith.

¶63

g) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

BVV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri Venkatesh S/O Chennappa Shet v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkatesh S/O Chennappa Shet 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United Social Welfare Association Vs Smt. Pushpalatha B S

Sri Daneshwari Seva Samsthe Belagavi Vs Smt. Pushpalata B S

The Divisional Manager Vs Sunil S/O.Kadagouda Patil

Smt. Kurubara Varalakshmi Alias G Varalakshmi W/O Lae Sri Kuruba Kuberappa Alias G Kuberappa Vs Sri B B Govinda Gouda S/O Basavaraju

Mohammed Rafiq S/O Allabakash Vs E Mounesha S/O Eswarappa

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Yamanappa Hanamanth Galag