Partly allowed

Sri Narayana Singh v. by Its Manager

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2024MFA/1653/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the motor vehicle accident appeal in part. Revising the Tribunal's assessment of notional income and applicable factors, the court enhanced the compensable liability from Rs.11,72,400 to Rs.16,80,800 for loss of dependency and other heads.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.16,80,800 payable by the Insurance Company; Tribunal judgment modified.

Sri Narayana Singh Vs by Its Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31396 MFA No. 1653 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1653 OF 2019 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI NARAYANA SINGH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O RAMASINGH.

¶8

SHANTHA BAI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O NARAYANA SINGH

¶9

SUNIL SINGH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O NARAYANA SINGH ALL ARE R/O NO.2016/6 RAMESHWARA TEMPLE SIDE FORT BACK HOUSE, MAGADI BANGALORE RURAL.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA K.M.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

BY ITS MANAGER M/S ICICI LOMBARD GIC NO.121,THE ESTATE BUILDING 9TH FLOOR,DICKSON ROAD BANGALORE-01.

¶15

SHANMUGAM S/O SHIVARAJ R/AT NO.6,"A" 8TH CROSS BALAJINAGAR, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:31396 MFA No. 1653 of 2019

¶19

(BY SRI.B C SHIVANNE GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNRPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 04.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.3663/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER OF MACT, BENGALURU PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 04.08.2018 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru in MVC 3663/2017.

¶24

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 16.04.2017 when the deceased Raja Singh was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-06-Y-5947 on Honnagana Hatti Bus Stand, Bangalore, at that time, an autorickshaw bearing

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31396 MFA No. 1653 of 2019

¶26

registration No.KA-05-AC-3819 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶27

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

¶28

Upon service of notice, the respondents appeared through counsel and filed written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶29

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove the case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of respondents, two witnesses were examined as RWs-1 and

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31396 MFA No. 1653 of 2019

¶31

2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.11,72,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the * owner of the offending vehicle . to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶32

The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶33

a) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident and had a monthly income of Rs.18,000/- by working as a Business. However, the assessment of income of the deceased at

¶34

Rs.8,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.

¶35

corrected vide Court order dated: 11.09.2024

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31396 MFA No. 1653 of 2019

¶37

b) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE

¶38

CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in cases, where the deceased was selfemployed or received a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ is warranted when the deceased was below the age of 40 years. This principle has been rightly considered by the Tribunal.

¶39

c) Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.

¶40

LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782] , each of the claimants is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶41

d) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side.

¶42

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal.

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31396 MFA No. 1653 of 2019

¶44

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following countercontentions:

¶45

a) Firstly, although the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per month, they have failed to substantiate their claim with supporting documents. Consequently, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

¶46

b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’.

¶47

c) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶48

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:31396 MFA No. 1653 of 2019

¶51

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶52

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶53

It is not in dispute that Raja Singh died in the road traffic accident occurred on 16.04.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶54

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per month, but failed to produce supporting documents to substantiate their claim. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2017 the notional income of the deceased shall be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘PRANAY SETHI’ (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.15,400/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the

¶55

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:31396 MFA No. 1653 of 2019

¶56

deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘17’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,70,800/- (Rs.15,4001217*50%) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶57

In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of

¶58

‘funeral expenses’.

¶59

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.1 and 2, parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’.

¶60

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:31396 MFA No. 1653 of 2019

¶61

13. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

¶62

compensation:

¶63

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	15,70,800
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of Filial consortium	80,000
Total	16,80,800

¶64

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶67

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶68

c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.16,80,800/- as against Rs.11,72,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶69

d) *Since the claimant is a third party, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of

¶70

Inserted vide Court order dated: 11.09.2024

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:31396 MFA No. 1653 of 2019

¶72

10 -

¶73

realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.* With liberty to recover

¶74

the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶75

e) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount

¶76

shall be made in accordance with the terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶77

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶78

DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

¶79

Inserted vide Court order dated: 11.09.2024

Sri Narayana Singh v. by Its Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narayana Singh v. by Its Manager

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

Baby Manasa Vs Sri Lakshmana Gowda B N

Mrs. Meena Vs Mrs. Rehana Nazeer

Smt. T. Dhanalakshmi Vs Sri. K. Kumar @ Madhukumar

Ravikumar. H. K. Vs Shivanna

Nagarajanaik Vs Vinod Kumar

Narasimhappa @ Narasimhamurthy N Vs Royal Sundram General Insurance Co. Ltd.