Partly allowed

Sunitha. M. S. v. Sri. a. Pawan

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2024MFA/1867/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants appealed a motor accident compensation award for the death of their son, arguing income was under-assessed. The court re-assessed notional monthly income at Rs.12,500, recomputed loss of dependency with 40% future prospects, 50% deduction and 18 multiplier, enhanced conventional heads with 10% escalation, and awarded Rs.4,29,000 additional compensation.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.4,29,000 with 6% p.a. interest awarded to be deposited by insurer within four weeks; apportionment and investment directions maintained.

Sunitha. M. S. Vs Sri. a. Pawan — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50487-DB MFA No.1867/2022

¶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.1867/2022 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUNITHA M.S. W/O SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS HOUSE WIFE.

¶9

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

¶10

SHIVAKUMAR S/O ANNAMALAI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS AGRICULTURAL COOLIE.

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF 7TH CROSS, PAPER TOWN UJJANIPURA, BHADRAVATHI-577 302.

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R. ADV.,)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. A. PAWAN S/O LATE ANNAMALAI .M AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O. 1ST CROSS, BEHIND CHURCH GANDHI NAGARA, OLD TOWN BHADRAVATHI-577 301 (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE).

¶16

SMT. INDRA W/O LATE ANNAMALAI .M AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50487-DB MFA No.1867/2022

¶18

R/O. 1ST CROSS, BEHIND CHURCH GANDHI NAGARA, OLD TOWN BHADRAVATHI-577 301 (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE).

¶19

SRI. PRAVEEN S/O LATE ANNAMALAI .M AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O. 1ST CROSS, BEHIND CHURCH GANDHI NAGARA, OLD TOWN BHADRAVATHI-577 301 (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE).

¶20

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SHANKAR MUTT ROAD B. H. ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. HEAD OFFICE HURGAON HARIYANA POLICY NO. 89773329 VALID FROM 10.07.2017 TO 09.07.2018.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R4 V/O/DTD:03.01.2023 NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 IS D/W)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE TRIBUNAL BELOW AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC & ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-12 AT BHADRAVATHI, IN MVC NO.1066/2018 BY ENHANCING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AND INTEREST AWARDED AND FURTHER ORDER THAT THE PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT HEREIN BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLE'S ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS TO BE PAYABLE BY THE RESPONDENTS TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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:50487-DB MFA No.1867/2022

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

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

¶30

Challenging the judgment and award in MVC

¶31

No.1066/2018 passed by the Addl. Sr. Civil Judge and Addl. MACT-12, Bhadravathi, claimants in the said case have preferred this appeal.

¶32

The appellants were claimants and respondent No.1 was respondent No.1, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were respondent Nos.2(a) and 2(b) and respondent No.4 was respondent No.3 in MVC No.1066/2018 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶33

The legal heirs of deceased Sri.S.Bhaskar filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.62,00,000/- for the death of deceased S.Bhaskar in a road traffic accident that occurred on 09.06.2018. It was contended that the deceased was inmate of car bearing registration No.KA-14 N-9220 and the said car was proceeding towards Bhadravathi. At that time, driver of the car drove the same in rash and negligent manner, lost control over it and dashed the drainage wall and then to the

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50487-DB MFA No.1867/2022

¶35

road side tree, resultantly Bhaskar sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. It was further contended that the deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of accident, was working as CSA in Idea Mobile Company and drawing monthly salary of Rs.8,000/- and was also doing agricultural work and earning more than Rs.20,000/- p.m. Due to his untimely death, claimants have suffered emotional and financial damage. It was also contended that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the car. Hence, sought to allow the claim petition.

¶36

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed statement of objections denying the age, avocation and income of the deceased. Respondent No.1 denied the negligence aspect. Respondent No.3 contended that the driver of the car was not having valid driving licence on the date of the accident and the vehicle was used for commercial purpose, hence, it is not liable to pay the compensation. Respondents sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶37

The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties.

¶38

Claimants have examined PWs-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50487-DB MFA No.1867/2022

¶40

to P16. Respondents examined RW-1, driver of the car and got marked Ex.R1. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the driver of the car was negligent and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.10,000/- p.m., added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, applied 18 multiplier and awarded Rs.15,12,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal, in all awarded compensation of Rs.15,82,000/under different heads with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. Being aggrieved, the claimants are in appeal seeking higher compensation.

¶41

Sri.Showri H.R., learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal committed grave error in assessing the income of the deceased and compensation awarded under the head of consortium is also on the lower side. It is submitted that the claimants are entitled to escalation of 10% on the conventional heads. Hence, he seeks to enhance the compensation appropriately under the aforesaid heads by allowing the appeal.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:50487-DB MFA No.1867/2022

¶43

Per contra, Sri.B.Pradeep learned counsel for

¶44

respondent No.4 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the claimants have failed to produce any legally acceptable evidence to prove the income of the deceased, hence, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m. It is further submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal on all other heads is just and does not call for any modification. 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

ANALYSIS

¶47

The pleadings and evidence on record indicate that in road traffic accident that occurred on 09.06.2018, son of the claimants S.Bhaskar died in the said accident. To substantiate the claim, father of the deceased is examined as PW-1. In his evidence, he deposed that the deceased was working as CSA in Idea Mobile Company, also doing agricultural activity and

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:50487-DB MFA No.1867/2022

¶49

earning more than Rs.20,000/- p.m. PW-2, Proprietor of Shree Jyothi Nanjundeshwara Enterprises has deposed that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.8,000/- p.m. and incentives of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- p.m. In support of the claim petition, claimants have produced the salary slip at Ex.P14 and ID card of the deceased at Ex.P13. On re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record with regard to the income of the deceased, we are of the considered view that the claimants have failed to produce the legally acceptable evidence to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/p.m. The Tribunal has erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m. The accident is of the year 2018. Considering the prevailing wages, cost of living during 2018 and also keeping in mind the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, we are of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs.12,500/- p.m. The deceased was aged about 25 years and was a bachelor at the time of accident. Hence, the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% of the assessed income of the deceased towards the future prospects. Further, 50% of the same has to

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:50487-DB MFA No.1867/2022

¶51

be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and the appropriate multiplier would be 18.

¶52

Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi¹ and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram² , claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each with 10% escalation under the head of loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/towards funeral expenses and transportation of dead body with 10% escalation. There is no dispute with regard to liability. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence held that respondent No.3 - Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and the said finding is in consonance with the evidence available on record.

¶53

The compensation towards loss of dependency is re-assessed as under:

¶54

12,500 + 5,000 (40%) = 17,500 - 50% (personal and living expenses) = 8,750 x 12 x 18 = 18,90,000/-

¶55

1 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶56

2 2018 (18) SCC 130

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:50487-DB MFA No.1867/2022

¶59

Hence, the compensation is re-assessed as under:

¶60

Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. awarded in Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 18,90,000/-
2. Consortium 88,000/-
(44,000 x 2)
3. Loss of estate 16,500/-
4. Funeral expenses and 16,500/-
transportation of dead
body
TOTAL 20,11,000/-
Compensation awarded by 15,82,000/-
the Tribunal
Enhanced compensation 4,29,000/-

¶61

The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6%

¶62

p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶63

For the aforementioned reasons, we pass the

¶64

following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i. The appeal is partly allowed.

¶67

ii. The claimants-appellants are held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,29,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶68

iii. Respondent No.3-insurer shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:50487-DB MFA No.1867/2022

¶70