Partly allowed

Ashwini T N v. Hussain Sab

Karnataka HC22 Jan 2024MFA/1840/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appearing against a motor vehicle accident compensation award, the Appellants sought enhancement. The Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the award by increasing compensation for loss of dependency and loss of consortium, calculating future prospects for the deceased, and awarding consortium per head for all dependents.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.25,98,500/- comprising increased loss of dependency, loss of consortium per head with escalation, retaining other heads but modifying interest rate for enhanced amount.

Ashwini T N Vs Hussain Sab — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:2971 MFA No. 1840 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1840 OF 2022(MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ASHWINI T.N., W/O LATE M. SANTHOSH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

¶8

HARSHAVARDAN GOWDA, S/O LATE M. SANTHOSH, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS.

¶9

RUKMINI, W/O MAHALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶10

MAHALINGAPPA, S/O BEEREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR, REP., BY APPELLANT NO.1, BEING A NATURAL GUARDIAN,

¶13

ALL ARE R/O NO.383/2, KALANAKOPPALU, ARSIKERE TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. K.R. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

HUSSAIN SAB, S/O MAKTAN SAB,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:2971 MFA No. 1840 of 2022

¶19

BADGE NO.1444, SAGAR, SHIMOGA DEPOT, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 204.

¶20

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHIMOGA DIVISION, KSRTC, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 203.

¶21

SRI. RAVISHA N.P., S/O PUTTAPPA N.P., R/O BHAGATH NAGAR, BIRUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 116.

¶22

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BHARATHI NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, TARIKERE, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. A.C. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 16.03.2023, NOTICE TO R1, R3, R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶25

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.714/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AMACT, ARSIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging

¶29

the judgment and award dated 03.03.2020 passed in MVC.No.714/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT,

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:2971 MFA No. 1840 of 2022

¶31

Arsikere (for short ‘the Tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellants seek enhancement of compensation.

¶32

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶33

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶34

On 06.03.2018 at about 12.30 p.m., one

¶35

Santhosh M.N. was traveling in auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA.18/B-2736 on B.H.Road, in front of RMC market, Arsikere Town, when the auto rickshaw was

¶36

taking turn towards Lakshimipura, at that time, the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA.14/F-008 came from Bengaluru towards Shivamogga in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety and dashed against the auto rickshaw, in which Santhosh M.N. was an inmate leading to the occurrence of accident. Due to the said impact of the vehicle, Santhosh M.N. sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Immediately, he was

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:2971 MFA No. 1840 of 2022

¶39

shifted to J.C.Hospital, Arsikere, where the post mortem report was conducted.

¶40

3.1 It is stated that the claimants, who are the dependents and legal representatives of deceased Santhosh M.N., spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment, transportation and funeral expenses. It is pleaded that the deceased Santhosh M.N. was hale and healthy prior to the occurrence of accident. He was aged 36 years and earning sufficient income to sustain his family. It is also pleaded that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the KSRTC bus. In view of sudden and untimely death of the deceased, the claimants have lost their bread earner, his love and affection and also mentally and financially. Hence, the claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶41

3.2 On service of notice, respondent No.1-driver of the offending vehicle remained absent and he was placed ex-parte . Respondent No.2-Corporation appeared through its counsel and filed objections statement denying the

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:2971 MFA No. 1840 of 2022

¶43

averments made in the claim petition including age, avocation, income, involvement of the vehicle and negligence attributed against the driver of the bus as well as against the driver of the auto rickshaw, which led to the occurrence of the accident and consequential death of inmate in the auto rickshaw. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶44

3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed the relevant issues for consideration.

¶45

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, claimant No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P12. On the other hand, respondent No.4 examined its Legal Manager as RW.1 and respondent No.1 got examined as RW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 to R7.

¶46

3.5 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsels for both parties, the tribunal awarded

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:2971 MFA No. 1840 of 2022

¶48

compensation of Rs.11,80,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. and fixed the liability on respondent No.2-Corporation to pay the compensation amount within one month with interest.

¶49

3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award.

¶50

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the tribunal has committed a gross error in not assessing proper income for computation, so also tribunal has not granted future prospects at 40%. It is also contended by the learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the tribunal has deducted 1/3^rd of income towards personal and living expenses instead of deducting 1/4^th , as there are four dependents and the tribunal has not awarded reasonable compensation under other heads. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the appeal preferred by the claimants and consequently, enhance the compensation.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:2971 MFA No. 1840 of 2022

¶53

Per contra , learned counsel for respondentCorporation vehemently contends that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the judgment and award passed by the tribunal. The tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and assessed the income of Rs.9,000/-, as there was no documentary proof produced by the claimants with regard to the income of the deceased. He also contended that on other heads also reasonable compensation is awarded, which does not call for interference. He further contended that the tribunal has deducted 1/3^rd of income, considering the fact that the father was earning and he would not be dependent on the deceased. Therefore, on these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶54

Heard the learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants and learned counsel for respondent-Corporation and perused the impugned judgment and award, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 06.03.2018, while the deceased was traveling as an inmate in an auto

¶55

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:2971 MFA No. 1840 of 2022

¶56

rickshaw, which met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the KSRTC bus. In order to establish the same, the claimants have adduced evidence and produced documents as Exs.P1 to P12, out of which, Exs.P1 to P9 are Police records, which clearly evidences the fact that FIR and charge sheet have been laid against

¶57

the driver of the bus, which is involved in the accident, whereby negligence is rightly attributed against the driver of the bus.

¶58

It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent-Corporation that when the driver of the bus himself admitted the registration of criminal case, which is produced at Ex.R7, it could not be established in favour of the respondent-Corporation. However, in view of the fact that the accident occurred leading to the death of the deceased and there being no appeal preferred by the Corporation, I do not find any need to advert further into any issue with regard to transferring the liability or negligence against the driver of other vehicle.

¶59

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:2971 MFA No. 1840 of 2022

¶60

Now coming to the aspect age, avocation, income and dependency, it is stated that the income taken by the tribunal is Rs.9,000/- per month as notional income, no documentary proof is produced before the tribunal to show the income. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.12,500/for the accident of the year 2018. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.12,500/-. The age of the claimant was 36 years at the time of accident. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at ‘15’, which does not call for interference. The tribunal has deducted 1/3^rd of income towards personal and living expenses, whereas the deceased left behind four dependents and the deductions towards personal and living expenses ought to have been taken at 1/4^th rather than 1/3^rd . The tribunal

¶61

has failed to award future prospects, in view of the deceased being aged 36 years, 40% would have to be added to the income as future prospects. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.23,62,500/- (Rs.12,500/- + 40% = Rs.17,500/- -

¶62

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:2971 MFA No. 1840 of 2022

¶63

1/4^th = Rs.13,125/- x 12 x 15) towards loss of dependency as against Rs. 10,80,000 /- awarded by the tribunal.

¶64

The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/towards loss of love and affection, the same does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶65

The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and the same requires to be modified. As there are four dependents, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- per head as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance

¶66

Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 followed by Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 . Therefore, under the head of loss of consortium, the claimants are entitled for Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 4) along with 10%

¶67

11 -

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:2971 MFA No. 1840 of 2022

¶69

escalation towards one block period, which would be

¶70

Rs.1,76,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- + 10%).

¶71

The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.30,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶72

In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.25,98,500/- as

¶73

against Rs.11,80,000/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶74

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	23,62,500-00
Loss of consortium	1,76,000-00
Loss of love and affection	15,000-00
Transportation and funeral	45,000-00
expenses
TOTAL	25,98,500-00

¶75

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶78

ii) The judgment and award dated 03.03.2020 passed in MVC.No.714/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Arsikere, is modified;

¶79

12 -

¶80

NC: 2024:KHC:2971 MFA No. 1840 of 2022

¶81

iii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.25,98,500/- as against Rs.11,80,000/-;

¶82

iv) The interest awarded by the tribunal at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.11,80,000/- is left undisturbed. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum;

¶83

v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent-Corporation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶84

vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated with regard to apportionment is retained as per the judgment and award of the tribunal.

¶85

Sd/JUDGE

¶86

CPN CT:SNN

Ashwini T N v. Hussain Sab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwini T N v. Hussain Sab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesha Vs Mahadeva

Mahadeva Naik B. M. Vs P. R. Rajendran

Santhosh Poojary Vs Sathish

Eshwar Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

Sri Kumara Vs Sri Ramesha

Sri Balakrishna Shetty Vs Sudhakara