Partly allowed

H Mahesh v. Anand

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024MFA/1933/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the Motor Vehicles First Appeal filed by claimants against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court modified the Tribunal's award by adjusting the deduction for personal expenses and consequent loss of dependency, also confirming claims for consortium, resulting in enhanced total compensation of Rs. 33,00,320/-.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part and the Tribunal's judgment modified to award total compensation of Rs. 33,00,320/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing.

H Mahesh Vs Anand — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38563 MFA No. 1933 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1933 OF 2019 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

H MAHESH S/O SRI. HALAIAH S AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶8

MASTER M RISHABH S/O SRI.H. MAHESH SINCE MINOR R/BY HIS FATHER AND THE N/G THE FIRST APPELLANT. H MAHESH OTH ARE R/AT NO.8(7), 1ST CROSS ABBAYYAPPA LAYOUT N.S.PALYA, BTM 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560076

¶9

…APPELLANTS

¶10

(BY SRI.K V NAIK., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

ANAND Digitally signed by S/O SRI. NAGARAJ HEMALATHA A MAJOR Location: HIGH R/AT NO.E-172/1, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT COURT OF KARNATAKA BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE, IIMB POST BENGALURU-560 076.

¶13

M/S FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD REP BY ITS MANAGER NO.31, 3RD FLOOR, ABOVE CROMA SHOWROOM SHARAVANEE KRISHNA MANSION 100 FEET ROAD, 2ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.O.MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 12.08.2024)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38563 MFA No. 1933 of 2019

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1843/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,BENGALURU (SCCH-1), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

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 19.09.2018 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.1843/2017.

¶21

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 17.03.2017, when the deceased Smt.Prajavathi was riding Gusto Scooter bearing registration No.KA-05-JL-8086 on the left side of

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38563 MFA No. 1933 of 2019

¶23

Bannerghatta Road from Arekere Gate towards Bilekahalli, at that time, a water tanker bearing registration No.KA07-5753 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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38563 MFA No. 1933 of 2019

¶28

Rs.24,62,740/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being

¶29

aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶30

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

¶31

a) Firstly, claimant No.1 is the husband and claimant No.2 is the minor son of the deceased and they were depending on the income of the deceased. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others –v- Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Tribunal instead of deducting 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses has erred in deducting 50% of the income.

¶32

b) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017

¶33

SC 5157], in cases, where the deceased was having a permanent job, an addition of 50% of the established

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38563 MFA No. 1933 of 2019

¶35

income towards ‘future prospects’ is warranted when the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The said principle has been rightly applied by the Tribunal to the present case.

¶36

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

¶37

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’.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38563 MFA No. 1933 of 2019

¶42

a) Firstly, claimant No.1 is the husband and claimant

¶43

No.2 is the minor son of the deceased. claimant No.1 is working in a private company and therefore, he is not depending on the income of the deceased. Claimant No.2, son is the only dependent. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses.

¶44

b) Secondly, 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.

¶45

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

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶47

It is not in dispute that Smt.Prajavathi died in the road traffic accident occurred on 17.03.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38563 MFA No. 1933 of 2019

¶49

The claimants claim that deceased was working as a Science Teacher in Chaitanya Techno School, Bengaluru and drawing salary of Rs.17,924/- p.m. and produced salary certificate and income tax returns. The Tribunal, after considering the materials available on record has rightly taken the salary of the deceased at Rs.17,924/and after deducting Rs.200/- towards professional tax, the salary has been rightly taken at Rs.17,724/-.

¶50

To the aforesaid income, 50% has been rightly 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.26,586/-. Claimant No.1 is the husband and claimant No.2 is the minor son of the deceased and they were depending on the income of the deceased. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of SARLA VERMA (supra), it is appropriate to deduct 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38563 MFA No. 1933 of 2019

¶52

the family, instead of 50% deducted by the Tribunal. The deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to her age group is ‘15’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.31,90,320/- (Rs.26,5861215*2/3) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶53

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 ‘funeral expenses’. Claimant No.1, husband of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

¶54

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant No.2, son of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:38563 MFA No. 1933 of 2019

¶56

14. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

¶57

compensation:

¶58

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	31,90,320
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of spousal consortium	40,000
Loss of Parental consortium	40,000
Total	33,00,320

¶59

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶62

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.33,00,320/- as against Rs.24,62,740/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶63