Partly allowed

Hanumavva W/O Gangadhar Balangoudar v. Imamsab S/O Ganisab Joyisaraharahalli

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2024MFA/102495/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Dharwad Bench allowed a miscellaneous first appeal filed by the wife and minor children of a deceased victim against a motor accident claim award. The court enhanced the compensation from Rs.13,30,940 to Rs.14,10,000 by adjusting the notional income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.14,10,000/-; interest at 6% p.a. from date of claim; respondent to deposit amount with Tribunal.

Hanumavva W/O Gangadhar Balangoudar Vs Imamsab S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB MFA No.102495 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6^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

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102495 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

HANUMAVVA W/O GANGADHAR BALANGOUDAR AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶10

PRASHANTA S/O GANGADHAR BALANGOUDAR AGE: 13 EYARS, OCC: STUDENT,

¶11

PRATIBHA D/O GANGADHAR BALANGOUDAR AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

¶12

ALL ARE R/O: NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶13

SINCE MINORS R/BY. NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER WHO IS APPELLANT NO.1.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. M.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶16

Digitallysigned by K MSOMASHEKAR
K MSOMASHEKAR Location: HighCourt ofKarnatakaDharwadBenchDate:2024.06.1210:47:13+0530

¶17

AND:

¶18

IMAMSAB S/O GANISAB JOYISARAHARAHALLI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE, R/O: MUDENUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-27/A-7845).

¶19

THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ALSUR ROAD, OPP: GURUDWAR, BANGALORE. (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE VIHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-27/A-7845)

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB MFA No.102495 of 2019

¶24

NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.127/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

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

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

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

¶29

2. The claimants are before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under judgment and award dated 1.1.2019 passed in MVC No.127/2015 on the file of learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl. MACT, Ranebennur (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

¶30

3. The claimants, who are the wife & minor children of deceased Gangadhar, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the accidental death of Gangadhar that took place on

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB MFA No.102495 of 2019

¶33

17.9.2014 involving Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA27/EA-4678 and Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.KA27/A/7845. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 38 years as on the date of accident and he was doing agricultural work as well as Goundi, earning Rs.25,000/- per month.

¶34

4. On issuance of notice, respondent No.2 appeared through its learned counsel and filed statement of objections denying the entire claim petition averments. It was contended that the driver of offending auto-rickshaw was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. It was further contended that the accident took place due to rash and negligent riding of rider of the motorcycle in question. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶35

5. Before the Tribunal, 1^st claimant-wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1 apart from marking the documents as Exs.P1 to P15. Respondents examined one witness and marked three documents as Ex.R1 to R3. The Tribunal based on entire material evidence on record

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB MFA No.102495 of 2019

¶37

awarded total compensation of Rs.13,30,940/- with interest

¶38

at 7% per annum on the following heads:

¶39

Loss of Dependency	Rs.11,75,940/-
Funeral expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate	Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of consortium	Rs. 1,20,000/-
Transportation expenses	Rs. 5,000/-
Total	Rs.13,30,940/-

¶40

6. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, deducted 1/3^rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier of 15. The claimants not being satisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation.

¶41

7. Heard Sri.M.H.Patil, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants as well as Sri.Subhash J Baddi, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and perused the appeal papers including original records.

¶42

8. The only contention urged by the learned counsel

¶43

Sri.M.H.Patil for the appellants-claimants is that the Tribunal

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB MFA No.102495 of 2019

¶45

committed an error in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, which is on the lower side, since the deceased was doing agricultural work as well as Goundi, earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal by assessing the income of the deceased on the higher side.

¶46

9. Per contra , Sri.Subhash J Baddi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company would contend that in the absence of any cogent or acceptable document to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal is justified in assessing notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, which is just and proper. He further submits that the Tribunal on appreciation of the material on record awarded just and reasonable compensation under various heads, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶47

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, the only point that

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB MFA No.102495 of 2019

¶50

would fall for consideration in this appeal is as to, whether the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation ?

¶51

11. Our answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following reasons.

¶52

12. The occurrence of the accident on 17.9.2014 involving Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/EA-4678 and Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-27/A/7845, resultant death of Gangadhar is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants are before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation. It is the contention of appellants-claimants that notional income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- per month is on the lower side. The claimants in order to prove the avocation and earning of the deceased have not produced any cogent or acceptable document. In the absence of any documentary evidence to establish the avocation and income of the deceased, this Court and Lok Adalath while settling the accidental claims of the year 2014, would normally assess notional income at Rs.7,500/- per month, taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA based on various factors including the

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB MFA No.102495 of 2019

¶54

minimum wage fixed. Therefore, in the instant case also, in the absence of any corroborative document to establish the income of the deceased, we are of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate for us to determine notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- p.m., taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA and also the minimum wage fixed. There is no dispute with regard to age of the deceased as 38 years, applicable multiplier of 14, addition of 40% of the assessed income of the deceased towards future prospects and deduction of 1/3^rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, as there are three dependents. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified compensation on the head of loss of dependency as under:

¶55

Rs.12,60,000/- (Rs.7,500 + 40% x 12 x 15 x 2/3).

¶56

13. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- each on the head of loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation of dead body, which in our view are just and proper, does not call for

¶57

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB MFA No.102495 of 2019

¶58

modification. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified compensation on the following heads:

¶59

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount
1.	Loss ofdependency	Rs.12,60,000/-
2.	Loss of estate & Funeral expenses	Rs. 30,000/-
3.	Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/-each)	Rs. 1,20,000/-
	Total	Rs.14,10,000/-

¶60

14. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.14,10,000/- as against Rs.13,30,940/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶61

15. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

a) The above appeal is allowed in part .

¶64

b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimants are entitled to total compensation Rs.14,10,000/- as against Rs.13,30,940/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶65

c) The enhanced compensation amount will bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realization.

¶66

d) The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB MFA No.102495 of 2019

¶68

¶69

within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶70

e) On such deposit, the same shall be released in favour of the appellant No.1/wife of the deceased.

¶71

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

¶72

g) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

JTR Ct:VP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Hanumavva W/O Gangadhar Balangoudar v. Imamsab S/O Ganisab Joyisaraharahalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumavva W/O Gangadhar Balangoudar v. Imamsab S/O Ganisab Joyisaraharahalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Pratibha Vs Fakrusab

Shri Sangamesh S/O Nagappa Rudagi Vs Sri Ritesh Kumar Singh

Pupil Tree Trust Foundation Vs the Commissioner of Public Instructions

Shri M M Bahavikatti Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S.Associated Mining Co. Vs the Principal Commissioner

Shri Basavaraj Purad Vs the Chief Engineer