Partly allowed

I S Anitha v. Somanna H S

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2024MFA/10561/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by the widow, minor daughter and mother of a Deputy Superintendent of Police killed when a tipper lorry hit his official car, challenging inadequacy of compensation. The High Court recomputed income on statutory deductions alone, applied Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma and Magma, and enhanced compensation to over one crore rupees.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.1,00,60,952 with 6% p.a. interest; insurer to deposit within eight weeks with liberty to recover from owner; rest of award maintained.

I S Anitha Vs Somanna H S — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50486-DB MFA No.10561/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10561/2018 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

I.S. ANITHA W/O LATE S. RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

¶9

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

¶10

PRANITHA .R D/O LATE S. RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 1 YEAR 3 MONTHS MINOR REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1.

¶11

V.D. PADMA W/O S.V. SURESH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶12

ALL ARE R/AT SASALU VILLAGE AND POST KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DIST 561203.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADV.,)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SOMANNA H.S. S/O SIDDARAMAIAH MAJOR R/O. HUCHAMANDADODDI M.G. PALYA POST KAILANCHA HOBLI RAMANAGARA DIST 562109 OWNER OF TATA TIPPER LORRY BEARING NO. KA-42/A-6252.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50486-DB MFA No.10561/2018

¶18

THE LEGAL MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD, NO.186/7, RAGHAVENDRA PLAZA GROND FLOOR, WILSON GARDEN HOSUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU 560027.

¶19

THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING BENGLAURU 560001 OWNER OF CAR BEARING NO. KA-01/G-5856.

¶20

THE DIRECTOR KGID (D.I.O. BENGALURU CITY DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICE 14TH FLOOR, VV TOWERS DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU 560001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S. SAMPRATHI, ADV., FOR R2 V/O/DTD:21.09.2022 NOTICE TO R1, R3 & R4 IS D/W)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MACT (SCCH-5) AT BENGALURU IN MVC NO.3024/2017 DATED 23.11.2018 AND TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.19,74,000/TO RS.3,00,00,000/- BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:50486-DB MFA No.10561/2018

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

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

¶31

"Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to

¶32

the appellants-claimants is just?" is the question involved in this case.

¶33

The appellants were claimant Nos.1 to 3 and respondent Nos.1 to 4 were respondent Nos.1 to 4 in MVC No.3024/2017 on the file of VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶34

Claimant Nos.1 to 3 are the widow, minor daughter and mother of the deceased Ravikumar. On 22.02.2017 at 07:30 p.m. after completing his official duty when Ravikumar was proceeding from Bengaluru to Mysuru in his official vehicle - Swift D'zire Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-G-5856 near Basava Gangothri, Kumbalagudu, tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-42-A6252 which was coming from Mysuru side, hit the car of Ravikumar. In the accident, Ravikumar suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. At the relevant time,

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:50486-DB MFA No.10561/2018

¶37

respondent Nos.1 & 2 were the registered owner and insurer of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-42-A-6252 and respondent Nos.3 & 4 were the owner and insurer of official Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-G-5856.

¶38

Claimants filed MVC No.3024/2017 before the Tribunal against the respondents claiming that the accident and consequential death of Ravikumar occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-42-A-6252. They further claimed that Ravikumar was serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Karnataka Lokayuktha and getting salary of Rs.64,813/- per month. They claimed that due to untimely death of their sole bread winner, they have suffered damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,00,000/- and sought recovery of the same from respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶39

Respondent No.1 did not contest the petition. Respondent No.2 - the insurer of lorry contested the petition denying the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the said lorry, age, occupation and income of the deceased. It was further contended that the driver of the lorry was not

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50486-DB MFA No.10561/2018

¶41

holding the driving licence, thereby there is breach of policy condition and therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation. Respondent No.3/The Registrar of Karnataka Lokayukta, the owner of official car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-G-5856 admitted the occurrence of accident and contended that their vehicle was covered under policy issued by respondent No.4, therefore, liability, if any, has to be satisfied by respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 contended that the accident occurred solely due to the actionable negligence of driver of lorry, therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶42

On behalf of the claimants, claimant No.1 was examined as PW-1 and exhibits P-1 to P-10 were marked. The Officer of respondent No.2 was examined as RW-1 and on its behalf, exhibits R-1 to R-13 were marked. The Tribunal, on hearing the parties and examining the material on record, by the impugned award held that the accident occurred solely due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-42-A-6252. The Tribunal further held that the driver of the tipper lorry was not holding the driving licence. However, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shamanna Vs. Oriental Insurance Company

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:50486-DB MFA No.10561/2018

¶44

Limited¹ , held that the insurer is liable to pay the damages to the claimants and recover the same from respondent No.1 - the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal relying on the ID proof of the deceased, considered his age as 35 years, relying on the salary slip/Ex.P-8 though considered his gross salary at Rs.64,813/p.m., deducting all voluntary deductions considered his monthly income at Rs.9,500/-. The Tribunal added 50% to the same by way of future prospects, out of that deducted 1/3^rd for his personal expenses, applied 16 multiplier and awarded Rs.18,24,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal, in all, awarded Rs.19,74,000/- on different heads as follows:

¶45

Sl.No.	Head of compensation	Amount/Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	18,24,000-00
2.	Loss of consortium (Petitioner No.1)	40,000-00
3.	Loss of consortium (Petitioner No.2 & 3)	80,000-00
4.	Loss of estate	15,000-00
5.	Funeral Expenses	15,000-00
	Total	19,74,000-00

¶46

1 (2018) 9 SCC 650

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:50486-DB MFA No.10561/2018

¶48

The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation. The claimants have challenged the said award in the above appeal questioning the adequacy of the compensation and computation of income of the deceased, etc.

¶49

Admittedly, respondent No.2 - the insurer has satisfied the impugned award. Therefore, the only question that remains is the correctness/adequacy of compensation awarded. Respondent No.2 did not dispute that the deceased was aged 35 years and was employed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Karnataka Lokayukta at the time of accident. Ex.P-8 shows that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.64,813/- p.m. Ex.P-8 was related to the month of February 2017 which was the end of the financial year for the purpose of assessing income tax. Therefore, income tax of Rs.29,715/- deducted was the balance payable for the said financial year and that will not be the income tax deduction of that particular month or income tax payable on his actual annual income. Apart from that except the deduction for the Professional Tax, other deductions were all voluntary deductions made for the purpose of savings. In assessing the income only statutory deductions should have been considered. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed grave

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:50486-DB MFA No.10561/2018

¶51

error in deducting Rs.55,313/- out of the gross salary of Rs.64,813/-.

¶52

Before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted the Form No.16 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, the drawing officer. The said Form No.16 pertains to the financial year 2016-17, Assessment Year 2017-18. As the same is authenticated and acceptable document, the same can be relied on. As per the said document, the gross annual salary of the deceased was Rs.7,93,987/- and the income tax payable was Rs.49,715/- and profession tax of Rs.2,400/- also was deducted. Therefore, total statutory deduction was Rs.52,115/(Rs.49715 + 2400). Therefore, his net annual income comes to Rs.7,93,987 - 52,115 = Rs.7,41,872/-.

¶53

Considering the age and employment of the deceased, 50% has to be superadded to the said income in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi

¶54

and others² . Therefore, his total annual income comes to

¶55

2 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶56

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:50486-DB MFA No.10561/2018

¶57

Rs.11,12,808/- (Rs.7,41,872 + 3,70,936). Deceased had three dependants, therefore, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another³ , 1/3^rd has to be deducted for his personal expenses. Hence, his contribution to the family comes to Rs.7,41,872/- (Rs.11,12,808 X 2/3). Applicable multiplier is 16. Therefore, just compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency would be Rs.1,18,69,952/- (Rs.7,41,872 X 16).

¶58

As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case referred to supra and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram & Ors.⁴ , the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each with escalation at 10% on the head of loss of consortium. Similarly they are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- on the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses with escalation at 10%. Therefore, just compensation payable is as follows:

¶59

3 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶60

4 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶61

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:50486-DB MFA No.10561/2018

¶62

Sl.No. Particulars/Heads	Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency	1,18,69,952
2 Loss of consortium	1,32,000
3 Loss of estate	16,500
4 Funeral expenses	16,500
Total	1,20,34,952
Less :Awarded by Tribunal	19,74,000
Enhanced compensation	1,00,60,952

¶63

The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at

¶64

6% p.a. Respondent No.2 - insurer shall deposit the same and recover it from respondent No.1 - the owner of tipper lorry.

¶65

For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶68

ii. The appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,00,60,952/-

¶69

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:50486-DB MFA No.10561/2018

¶70

with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶71

iii. Respondent No.2 - insurer shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, with the liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1.

¶72

iv. Rest of the award is maintained.

¶73

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶74

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶75

BSR

¶76

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

I S Anitha v. Somanna H S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I S Anitha v. Somanna H S

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

Master Raghava v. Naik Vs Rahamatulla Khan

The Branch Manager Vs Smt B L Chudamani

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri B R Sanjay

Sunitha. M. S. Vs Sri. a. Pawan

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs T Jayanna

Sundramma Vs B Ravi