Allowed

Sri R Nataraj v. Smt Susheelamma

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2024MFA/10492/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants appealed for enhancement of compensation for death of their son in a motor vehicle accident. The court raised the deceased's monthly income to Rs.24,000, applied 40% future prospects, 50% deduction, multiplier 17, and awarded consortium, enhancing compensation by Rs.8,76,876 with 6% interest against the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.8,76,876/- with interest at 6% p.a., payable by respondent No.2/insurer; claimant Nos.1 and 2 entitled to 50% each.

Sri R Nataraj Vs Smt Susheelamma — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:51758-DB MFA No.10492/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10492/2018 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI R NATARAJ S/O LATE RAMALINGAM AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶10

SMT ANITHA RAJ W/O R NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶11

DEEKSHIKA D/O SRI R NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶12

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

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT NO.35/8 MUNEGOWDA BUILDING KRISHNA TEMPLE ROAD DODDA BOMMSANDRA BANGALORE-97 … APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI.MURALIDARA R, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT.SUSHEELAMMA W/O GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.79, HUTHANAHALLI CHIKKAJALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE - 562 157 (R.C. OWNER OF AMBASSADOR CAR BEARING REG.NO.KA-01 M L 8755)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:51758-DB MFA No.10492/2018

¶19

THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BUSINESS CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR SWATHI 32C, SECOND MAIN AMARJYOTHI NAGAR, SANJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-34 (POLICY NO.606005311510002076 VALID FROM 09/02/2016 TO 08/02/2017) … RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; APPEAL AGAINST R1 STANDS DISMISSED V/O DTD:26.03.2024)

¶21

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16/10/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.231/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXII ACMM., MEMBER, MACT-3, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

¶26

Though the matter has come up for admission, with

¶27

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

¶28

Challenging the adequacy of compensation awarded to them, claimants in MVC No.231/2017 on the file of VII Additional Small Causes Judge & XXXII ACMM, MACT-3, Bengaluru have preferred this appeal.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51758-DB MFA No.10492/2018

¶30

The appellants were claimant Nos.1 to 3 and respondents were respondent Nos.1 and 2 in MVC.No.231/2017 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶31

Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents and claimant No.3 is younger sister of deceased Bharat Raj. On 18.06.2016 at about 2:30 a.m., when Bharat Raj was travelling in Maruti Ritz Car bearing registration No.KA.01/ML-8755, the said Car hit against lorry bearing registration No.HR-55-G-3752. Due to the injuries suffered in the accident, Bharat Raj died on the spot. At the relevant time, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the registered owner and insurer of Car bearing registration No.KA.01/ML-8755.

¶32

Claimants filed MVC.No.231/2017 before the Tribunal alleging that accident and consequential death of Bharat Raj occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of Car bearing registration No.KA.01/ML-8755. They further contended that the deceased was B.E graduate in Computer Science from Nitte Meenakshi Institute of Technology and he was working as Area Sales Executive in Vaishnavi

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:51758-DB MFA No.10492/2018

¶34

Financial Services, earning Rs.24,000/- per month and they were all dependent on his income. The claimants contended that due to untimely death of Bharat Raj, they have suffered damages to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/- and respondents are liable to compensate the same.

¶35

Respondents contested the petition denying

¶36

actionable negligence on the part of driver of Car, age, occupation, income of the deceased and their liability to pay the compensation.

¶37

On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P23 were marked. Respondents did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal on hearing both the parties by the impugned award held that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of Car bearing registration No.KA.01/ML-8755. The Tribunal based on Ex.P16/ Aadhaar Card of the deceased, considered his age as 26 years. The Tribunal considered income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/per month, added 40% to the income of the deceased by way of future prospects, deducted 50% out of the same for his personal expenses, applied 17 multiplier and awarded compensation of Rs.25,70,400/- on the head of loss of

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:51758-DB MFA No.10492/2018

¶39

dependency. The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of

¶40

Rs.26,00,400/- on different heads as below:

¶41

Sl. No.	Particulars	Compensation awarded in Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	25,70,400/-
2.	Loss of estate	15,000/-
3.	Transportation of dead body and	15,000/-
	funeral expenses
	Total	Rs.26,00,400/-

¶42

Respondents have not challenged the award. Claimants challenged the award questioning adequacy of compensation.

¶43

Sri. Muralidara R, learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal committed error in considering the income of the deceased only at Rs.18,000/per month. He submits that though the Tribunal considered the evidence of PW.2 that income of the deceased was Rs.24,000/per month, without assigning any reason reduced the same to Rs.18,000/-. Income considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation on the head of consortium. He submits that compensation awarded needs to be enhanced.

¶44

Sri Ashok N Patil, learned Counsel for respondent

¶45

No.2 submits that evidence of PW.2 regarding income of the

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:51758-DB MFA No.10492/2018

¶47

deceased being Rs.24,000/- per month was unacceptable and

¶48

compensation awarded on the other heads is also just one.

¶49

Analysis

¶50

Finding of the Tribunal that Bharat Raj died on 18.06.2016 at 2:30 a.m due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of Car bearing registration No.KA.01/ML-8755 is not under challenge. The deceased being aged 26 years and having completed B.E graduation in 2014 are also not under dispute. The accident took place on 18.06.2016. PW.2/Area Sales Manager of Vaishnavi Financial Services deposed that Bharat Raj was employed in their institution since 14.02.2014 with annual package of Rs.2,88,000/-. For that, he relied on Ex.P20/appointment letter. The Tribunal disbelieved his evidence only on the ground that salary slip was not produced.

¶51

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Kandasami & Ors Vs. Linda Briyal & Anr.,¹ in the similar circumstances where accident had taken place in 2008, held as follows:

¶52

“Be that as it may, even in that circumstance, when it is established that the deceased was an

¶53

1 Civil Appeal No.3125/2023

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:51758-DB MFA No.10492/2018

¶56

engineering graduate and the employment opportunities during the year 2008 is kept in view, even on a conservative estimate the sum of Rs.25,000/- to be reckoned would be justified.”

¶57

(Emphasis supplied)

¶58

In the case on hand, the accident had taken place

¶59

in the year 2016. But claimants themselves claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.24,000/- per month. Therefore, at least that should have been considered by the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per month has no basis and is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kandasami ’s case referred to supra. Out of Rs.24,000/-, Rs.200/- has to be deducted towards Professional Tax. Therefore, his monthly income would be Rs.23,800/- and annual income comes to (Rs.23,800x12) = Rs.2,85,600/-. Out of that, as per the Finance Act, 2016, Rs.3,560/- has to be deducted towards Income Tax. Therefore, his annual income would be (Rs.2,85,600 – 3,560) = Rs.2,82,040/-. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company

¶60

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:51758-DB MFA No.10492/2018

¶61

Limited vs . Pranay Sethi and Others² and having regard to the age of the deceased, 40% has to be super added to his income. Therefore, his annual income would be Rs.2,82,040 + 1,12,816 (40%) =Rs.3,94,856/-. As the deceased was bachelor, having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another³ , 50% has to be deducted for his personal expenses and applicable multiplier is 17. Therefore, compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency comes to (Rs.3,94,856 /2 x17=) Rs.33,56,276/-.

¶62

In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble

¶63

Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi ’ s case referred to supra and in the judgment in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram &Ors⁴ , parents of the deceased are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/each on the head of consortium with escalation of 10%. Similarly, they are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- + 15,000/- on the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses

¶64

2 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶65

3 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶66

4 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶67

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:51758-DB MFA No.10492/2018

¶69

with escalation at 10%. Therefore, the just compensation

¶70

payable is as follows:

¶71

Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	33,56,276/-
Loss of consortium	88,000/-
Loss of estate	16,500/-
Funeral expenses and	16,500/-
transportation of dead body
Total	34,77,276/-
Less: Awarded by Tribunal	26,00,400/-
Enhanced compensation	8,76,876/-

¶72

Enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6%

¶73

per annum payable by respondent No.2/insurer. For the aforesaid reasons, appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

The appeal is allowed in part.

¶76

The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.8,76,876/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶77

Respondent No.2 - insurer shall deposit the said amount along with accrued interest before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶78