Partly allowed

Sri N Sreekanthaiah v. Smt. Marabhathini Guravamma

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2024MFA/1228/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident death claim. It reassessed the deceased student's notional income at Rs. 25,000 p.m., applied a multiplier of 18, added 40% for future prospects, and deducted 50% for personal expenses, revising the award to Rs. 39,01,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 39,01,000/- with 6% interest from date of petition till realization.

Sri N Sreekanthaiah Vs Smt. Marabhathini Guravamma — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:47827-DB MFA No.1228/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 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.1228/2018 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. N. SREEKANTHAIAH S/O NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶9

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT. VIJAYA W/O N. SREEKANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶11

BOTH ARE R/AT. NEW EXTN CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TUMKUR DIST.

¶12

ALSO AT: # 6, 2ND CROSS, SHAMANNA LAYOUT LINGARAJAPURA, BANGALORE-84.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. PRUTHVI RAJ N.M. ADV.,)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. MARABHATHINI GURAVAMMA W/O GURUNADHAM AGED 71 YEARS R/AT # 7-306 NAGARCHIPALEM STREET SRIKALAHASTI, CHITTOOR DIST ANDHRA PRADESH-517644.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:47827-DB MFA No.1228/2018

¶18

CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., NO.40-1-48/1, 2ND FLOOR BEHIND, KOTAKA MAHINDRA BANK M G ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, A P-520010.

¶19

ALSO AT: CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INS CO LTD., UNIT NO.4, 9TH FLOOR, (LEVERL-9) "GOLDEN HEIGHTS" COMPLEX 59TH "C" CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB 4TH "M" BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560010.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 16.02.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶22

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS. MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE (SCCH-15) IN MVC NO.7095/2016, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL THEREBY ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION & ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:47827-DB MFA No.1228/2018

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶30

Challenging the judgment and award in MVC

¶31

No.7095/2016 passed by the XIII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-15), claimants have filed this appeal.

¶32

Appellants were claimants, respondents were respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶33

The parents of deceased Srinivas C.S. filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for his death in a road traffic accident that occurred on 08.10.2016. It was contended that the deceased Srinivas C.S. along with his brother was proceeding on Bajaj motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-44 Q-6609 from Tumakuru to Chikkanayakanahalli on NH-206. At that time, lorry bearing registration No.AP-03 TD-3338 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle resultantly, the

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:47827-DB MFA No.1228/2018

¶35

deceased who was the pillion rider died on the spot and the rider sustained grievous injuries. It was further contended that the deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of accident, was a student of 8^th semester of B.E., Electronics and Communication engineering at Siddaganga Institute of Technology, Tumakuru. It was also contended that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. It was contended that the claimants have incurred substantial amount towards funeral and other expenses and have lost emotional and financial dependency due to the untimely death of their son. Hence, they sought for allowing the claim petition.

¶36

Respondent No.1 was placed exparte before the

¶37

Tribunal. Respondent No.2 filed objections. It was contended that the payment of compensation and liability is subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the policy. It was further contended that the rider of the motorcycle was responsible for the accident in question. Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, they sought dismissal of the claim petition.

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:47827-DB MFA No.1228/2018

¶39

The Tribunal clubbed MVC No.7094/2016 with MVC No.7095/2016 and recorded common evidence of the parties. Claimant No.2 got examined herself as PW-2. The claimants got marked common exhibits as Exs.P1 to P26 in both the claim petitions. The respondents did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.50,000/- p.a., applied '9 multiplier, awarded Rs.4,50,000/under the head of loss of dependency and in total awarded compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. Being aggrieved, claimants are in appeal seeking higher compensation.

¶40

Sri.Pruthvi Raj N.M., learned counsel for the

¶41

appellants submits that the Tribunal committed grave error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.50,000/- p.a. as the deceased was meritorious student of 8^th semester of B.E., Electronics and Communication engineering at Siddaganga Institute of Technology, Tumakuru. Hence, his income is required to be re-assessed atleast at Rs.25,000/- p.m. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in applying 9 multiplier considering the age of the father of the deceased

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:47827-DB MFA No.1228/2018

¶43

which is erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation on all other heads. Hence, he seeks to re-assess the same.

¶44

Per contra, Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the deceased was not earning any income at the time of accident. Admittedly, he was a student of engineering course. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income of the deceased which does not call for any modification. He submits that the award of compensation by the Tribunal is just and fair and does not call for any interference in the appeal filed by the claimants. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

¶45

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and examining the materials on record, the point that arises for consideration is “ Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference”?

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:47827-DB MFA No.1228/2018

¶48

ANALYSIS

¶49

The undisputed facts are that in a road traffic accident that occurred on 08.10.2016, son of the claimants namely Srinivas C.S. died. The deceased was aged about 21 years and was studying in 8^th semester B.E., Electronics and Communication engineering at Siddaganga Institute of Technology, Tumakuru. In support of the same, the claimants have produced the study certificate issued by the Principal of the said College which is marked as Ex.P17. They have also produced Ex.P18- statement of marks of the deceased for the respective semesters which reflects the merit and the attendance of the deceased, Ex.P20-SSLC marks card and Ex.P21-the certificate for having presented the project during his academics at Dr.Ambedkar Institute of Technology. Considering the academic excellence of the deceased and his participation in different activities, we are the considered view that the deceased was a bright student and had potential to secure better employment immediately after completion of his course. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if we notionally re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/-

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:47827-DB MFA No.1228/2018

¶51

p.m. Our view also gains support from the assessment of income by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kandasami and others Vs. Linda Briyal and another¹ , where the notional income of an engineering graduate was assessed at Rs.25,000/- p.m. In the said case, the accident was of the year 2008 and in the instant case, the accident is of the year 2016. There is a gap of 8 years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and another² assessed the notional income of a student pursuing medical degree at Rs.25,000/p.m. In the said case, the accident was of the year 2002. In the case on hand, the accident is of the year 2016. There is a gap of nearly more than 14 years. Though the course in the case on hand is different than in the case of Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi's case referred to supra, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if we re-assess the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.25,000/p.m.

¶52

The Tribunal has committed grave error in applying multiplier of 9 considering 60 years as the age of father of the

¶53

1 Civil Appeal No.3125/2023 dt. 24.4.23

¶54

2 (2015) 2 SCC 180

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:47827-DB MFA No.1228/2018

¶56

deceased. The said consideration of multiplier by the Tribunal is erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble

¶57

Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport

¶58

Corporation³ . The deceased was aged about 21 years. Hence, appropriate multiplier would be 18 and appropriate deduction would be 50% towards the personal and living expenses as he was unmarried. Claimants are also entitled to addition of 40% of the assessed income of the deceased under the head of loss of future prospects of the deceased. For the aforementioned reasons, the loss of dependency is re-assessed as under:

¶59

25,000 + 10,000 (40% future prospects) = 35,000 - 50% = 17,500 x 12 x 18 = 37,80,000/-

¶60

The claim petition is filed by the parents. Hence, they are entitled to consortium of Rs.40,000/- each with 10% escalation. They are also entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate with 10% escalation and Rs.15,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses with 10% escalation. Hence, the compensation is reassessed as under:

¶61

3 2009 ACJ 1298

¶62

10 -

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:47827-DB MFA No.1228/2018

¶64

Sl. No.	Particulars	Compensation awarded in Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	37,80,000/-
2.	Consortium	88,000/-
3.	Loss of estate	16,500/-
4.	Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses	16,500/-
	TOTAL	39,01,000/-
	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	5,25,000/-
	Enhanced compensation	33,76,000/-

¶65

The compensation amount carries interest at the rate of

¶66

6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶67

For the aforementioned reasons, we pass the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶70

appellants/claimants is enhanced by Rs.33,76,000/- 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 four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶72

11 -

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:47827-DB MFA No.1228/2018

¶74

iv. On such deposit, the Tribunal shall digitally release 50% of the shares of the claimants and balance 50% shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank

¶75

of the choice of the claimants for a period of three years.

¶76

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶77

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶78

RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Sri N Sreekanthaiah v. Smt. Marabhathini Guravamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Sreekanthaiah v. Smt. Marabhathini Guravamma

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

Smt. Mani K Vs Sri Murali v

The National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Smt. G Sakunthala

The Manager Vs Thomas P

Mr. N. Abdul Haris Vs State of Karnataka

G Nagarathna Vs G Manjunatha

Smt Vishalakshmamma Vs Sri Rangaswamy