Partly allowed

Ramchandra S/O Tanaji v. Brian D Souza, St . John Wada Marra

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2024MFA/102102/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the motor accident compensation awarded to the deceased's dependents. The court corrected the Tribunal's assessment of notional income and added heads for loss of estate, consortium, and future prospects, increasing the total award.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award enhanced from Rs.14,73,000/- to Rs.19,62,200/-; enhanced amount to bear interest at 6% per annum.

Ramchandra S/O Tanaji Vs Brian D Souza, St . John… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:540-DB MFA No. 102102 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102102 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RAMACHANDRA S/O. TANAJI @ MAYAJI GAWAS, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: NIL.

¶11

ROSHANA W/O. RAMACHANDRA GAWAS, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

¶12

ROHINI D/O. RAMACHANDRA GAWAS, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.

¶13

MAIBA W/O. GOVIND GAWAS, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL ARE R/O. BACHI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591128.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. YASH R. NADKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

CHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANIDate: 2024.01.2217:21:37 +0530

¶17

AND:

¶18

BRIAN ‘D’ SOUZA, ST. JOHN WADA MARRA, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PILERNE, REIS MAGOAS (P.O), MAPUSA, NORTH GOA-403114.

¶19

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT, 1ST FLOOR, PRABHU BUILDING , 1732, RAMDEV GALLLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAJESH B. RAJANAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 DISPSENSED WITH)

¶22

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:540-DB MFA No. 102102 of 2019

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.07.2018 IN MVC NO. 1876/2017 PASSED BY THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI IN AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS. 14,73,000/- AND INTEREST AT RATE OF 9% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND MAY BE KINDLY MODIFIED BY ENHANCING TO AS PRAYED FOR WITH 18% INTEREST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, K V ARAVIND, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Though this appeal is listed for admission, it is taken up for final disposal, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶27

The appellants-claimants are before this Court dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under judgment and award dated 21.07.2018 in MVC No.1876/2017 on the file of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi (for short, “Tribunal”), praying for enhancement of compensation.

¶28

The claimants, are the father, mother, sister and grand-mother of the deceased Rohit. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the accidental death

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:540-DB MFA No. 102102 of 2019

¶30

of Rohit that occurred on 08.07.2017 involving motor cycle bearing No.MH-07/Z-1218 and Tavera Neo Car bearing No.GA-03/T-5799. The claimants have stated that the deceased was driving Taxi and was aged 23 years, earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as salary and Rs.200/per day as batta.

¶31

On issuance of notice, respondent No.2/insurer appeared through its counsel and filed objections. Though notice was served on respondent No.1-owner of Tavera Neo Car, remained absent and placed ex-parte . The respondent No.2 in its objection denying the case of the petitioner contended that deceased has no driving license, accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased. On the above submissions prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶32

The claimant No.2-mother of the deceased examined herself as PW-1 and got marked as Exs.P1 to P6. The respondent No.2 has not led evidence. However, got marked as Ex.R-1/insurance policy. The Tribunal based

¶33

- 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:540-DB MFA No. 102102 of 2019

¶34

on material evidence on record awarded total

¶35

compensation of Rs.14,73,000/- with a simple interest at

¶36

9% per annum on the following heads.

¶37

Sl.No.	Heads of Compensation	Amount
1.	Towards loss of dependency	9,72,000.00
2.	Towards loss of future prospects	4,86,000.00
3.	Towards funeral expenses	15,000.00
	Total	14,73,000.00

¶38

While awarding the above compensation, the

¶39

Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month, deducted 50% of the same towards personal and living expenses as the deceased was bachelor and applied multiplier of ‘18’, considering the age of the deceased as 23. The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation.

¶40

Heard learned counsel Shri.Yash R.Nadkarni for

¶41

Shri. Vitthal S. Teli for the appellants-claimants and Shri. Rajesh B. Rajanal, learned counsel for respondent No.2-

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:540-DB MFA No. 102102 of 2019

¶43

Insurance Company and perused the appeal papers along with original records.

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellants would

¶45

contend that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month without considering that the deceased was possessing valid driving license and working as a driver and earning Rs.20,000/- per month as salary and Rs.200/- per day as batta. Learned counsel contends that the deceased was only bread earning member of the family. Learned counsel further submits that the compensation awarded under other conventional heads is also on the lower side. Thus, it is prayed to allow the appeal and to enhance the compensation.

¶46

Per contra, Shri. Rajesh B. Rajanal, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation, which needs no interference. Learned counsel further submits that in the absence of any

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:540-DB MFA No. 102102 of 2019

¶48

evidence regarding income of the deceased, notional income at Rs.9,000/- per month has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal. He further submits that the deceased was 23 years as on the date of the accident. His date of birth is 14.06.1994. Date of issue of driving license for Light Motor Vehicle is on 22.09.2014. He submits that within a period of 3 years of the license, in the absence of any evidence, it cannot be accepted that the deceased was driving Taxi. It is further submitted that to drive Taxi, no badge has been issued by the competent authority. Therefore, submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is justified.

¶49

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers along with original records, the point that would fall for consideration in this appeal is as under:

¶50

i. Whether the Tribunal is justified in assessing notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month.

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:540-DB MFA No. 102102 of 2019

¶52

Answer to the above point would be ‘in the negative’ for the following reasons.

¶53

The accident which occurred on 08.07.2017 involving motor cycle bearing No.MH-07/Z-1218 and Tavera Neo Car bearing No.GA-03/T-5799 and death of Shri. Rohit son of 1^st and 2^nd claimants due to road accident is not in dispute. The liability to pay compensation by the insurer is also not under dispute in this appeal. The appellants are before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation.

¶54

The Tribunal committed grave error in assessing the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.9,000/- per month. The appellants have placed driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The PW1-mother of the deceased in her evidence has pleaded that deceased was aged 23 years, working as driver, earning salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and Rs.200/- per day as batta. The respondent No.2 in cross-examination has not elicited any evidence to disprove the contention that the deceased was

¶55

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:540-DB MFA No. 102102 of 2019

¶56

driver and driving taxi and earning 20,000/- per month and Rs.200/- per day as batta. Considering the notional income determined by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority at 10,250/- per month for the accident during 2017 and also considering the deceased possessing the valid driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and also the prevailing average earning of the drivers driving LMV, we deem it just and proper to assess income of the deceased at Rs.12,250/- per month.

¶57

The Tribunal is justified in deducting 50% of the assessed income towards personal expenses of the deceased considering that the deceased was a bachelor in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma . Considering the age of the deceased and in light of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others¹ , the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future

¶58

1 2017 ACJ 2700

¶59

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:540-DB MFA No. 102102 of 2019

¶60

prospects instead of 50% awarded by the tribunal. There is no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased as 23

¶61

years. Proper multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is 18. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for compensation on the head of loss of dependency as under:

¶62

Rs.12,250 + 40% x 12 x 18 x 1/2 = Rs.18,52,200/-

¶63

The Tribunal committed an error in not awarding compensation towards loss of estate and loss of consortium. In terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi , the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.15000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on the head of funeral expenses. In terms of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram & Others² , 1^st and 2^nd claimant-parents of the deceased would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on the head of filial consortium.

¶64

2 2018 ACJ 2782

¶65

10 -

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC-D:540-DB MFA No. 102102 of 2019

¶67

16. Thus the claimants would be entitled for

¶68

modified compensation under following heads:

¶69

Sl. No.	Heads of Compensation	Amount
1.	Towards loss of dependency	18,52,200.00
2.	Filial consortium (40,000/-x 2)	80,000.00
3.	Loss of estate	15,000.00
4.	Towards funeral expenses	15,000.00
	Total	19,62,200.00
	Amount awarded by the tribunal	14,73,000.00
	Enhancement	4,89,200.00

¶70

Thus claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.19,62,200/- as against Rs.14,73,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶71

In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

a) The above appeal is allowed in part .

¶74

b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.19,62,200/- as against Rs.14,73,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶75

c) The enhanced compensation amount of Rs.4,89,200/- will bear interest at the

¶76

11 -

¶77

NC: 2024:KHC-D:540-DB MFA No. 102102 of 2019

¶78

rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realization.

¶79

d) The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶80

e) Apportionment, deposit and disbursement of the enhanced compensation amount shall be made as per the award of the Tribunal.

¶81

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

¶82

g) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶83

Sd/JUDGE

¶84

Sd/JUDGE

¶85

RKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Ramchandra S/O Tanaji v. Brian D Souza, St . John Wada Marra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramchandra S/O Tanaji v. Brian D Souza, St . John Wada Marra

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

Hdfc Ergo General Ins. Com Ltd. Vs Smt. Renuka

Bharati W/O. Suresh Bhavannavar Vs Suresh S/O. Devendra Bhavannavar

Narendra S/O. Parasmal Jain Vs Smt. Dipali W/O. Narendra Jain

Subhash S/O Ramappa Alias Ramanagouda Patil Vs the Chief Engineer

Mrs. Naseemabai Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Goadavarthi Adinarayana S/O Chinnapallayya Vs Sri K Nandakishore