Partly allowed

Smt. Alamelamma v. Sri Maruthi G

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2024MFA/1976/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court enhanced compensation awarded by the MACT Tribunal in a death claim arising from a motor accident. Applying Supreme Court precedents, the Court adjusted the notional income, applied a 1/4th deduction for personal expenses as there were four dependants, and escalated conventional heads of loss of consortium, estate, and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,35,208/- with interest at 6% p.a. awarded to the claimants against the insurer.

Smt. Alamelamma Vs Sri Maruthi G — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:48072-DB MFA No.1976/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1976/2021 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. ALAMELAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶8

HARSHITHA K GOWDA D/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶9

ARPITHA K GOWDA D/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS

¶10

SMT KAMALAMMA D/O LATE MARIVENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.122, 3^RD MAIN, 3^RD CROSS NANJAPPA LAYOUT SUNKADAKATTE BENGALURU – 560 091 AND ALSO R/AT NO.122 2^ND CROSS, VINAYAKANAGAR RAMANAGAR TOWN

¶13

APPELLANT NO.3 IS MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1 SMT. ALAMELAMMA … APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY MS. ANJANA A V, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.RAKSHITHA D J, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:48072-DB MFA No.1976/2021

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI MARUTHI G S/O GANGAPPA AGE MAJOR R/AT NO.215, 2^ND MAIN KOTTIGEPALYA NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU

¶18

THE MANAGER UNIVERSAL SAMPOO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED CORPORATE OFFICE, UNIT NO.401 4^TH FLOOR, SANGAMA COMPLEX ANDHERI, KURLA ROAD MUMBAI (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE) … RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.RAJENDRA HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:24.03.2023)

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.347/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MACT, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

¶25

"Whether the compensation awarded to the

¶26

appellants/claimants by the impugned award is just?” is the question involved in this case.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48072-DB MFA No.1976/2021

¶28

Appellants were claimant Nos.1 to 4 and

¶29

respondents were respondent Nos.1 and 2 in MVC No.347/2016 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM and MACT, Ramanagara. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶30

Claimant No.1 is wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the children, claimant No.4 is the mother of the deceased Krishnegowda. On 13.07.2016 at about 7:30 a.m., when Krishnegowda was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.K.A-41-L-3552 near Annapoorneshwari auto stand, Annapoorneshwarinagar, Bengaluru, driver of lorry bearing registration No.K.A-42-2933 drove that in rash and negligent manner, hit Krishnegowda and caused the accident. Krishnegowda was shifted to Panacea hospital, Bengaluru and from there he was taken to KIMS Hospital, Bengaluru. On 15.07.2016 when he was being treated in KIMS Hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. At the relevant time, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the registered owner and insurer of lorry bearing registration No.K.A-42-2933.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:48072-DB MFA No.1976/2021

¶32

Claimants filed MVC No.347/2016 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.45 lakhs from the respondents alleging that the accident and death of Krishnegowda occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of lorry. They further contended that the deceased was earning Rs.600/- per day as a plumber and they were all dependent on his income, due to his death, they have suffered the damages. They also claimed that they have spent Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical expenses and respondents are liable to pay the compensation with interest at 24 % per annum.

¶33

Respondent No.1 did not contest the matter before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 contested the petition denying actionable negligence on the part of the driver of lorry, age, occupation, income of the deceased and its liability to pay the compensation.

¶34

Before the Tribunal, claimant No.1 got herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P37. Respondents did not lead any evidence.

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:48072-DB MFA No.1976/2021

¶36

¶37

The Tribunal on hearing the parties by the impugned award held that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Based on the postmortem report/Ex.P6, Tribunal considered the

¶38

age of the deceased as 42 years, notionally assessed his income at Rs.10,000/- per month, added 25% to the same by way of future prospects, deducted 1/3^rd from his income for his personal expenses, applied 14 multiplier and awarded compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- on the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of Rs.15,38,800/- on different heads as below:

¶39

Sl.	Particulars	Compensation
No.		awarded in Rs.
1.	Towards Loss of dependency	14,00,000/-
2.	Towards loss of consortium	40,000/-
3.	Towards loss of estate	15,000/-
4.	Towards funeral expenses	15,000/-
5.	Towards medical treatment	68,800/-
	Total	Rs.15,38,800/-

¶40

The claimants have assailed the impugned award questioning adequacy of compensation.

¶41

Ms. Anjana, A.V, learned Counsel representing advocate on record for the appellants/claimants submits that as

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48072-DB MFA No.1976/2021

¶43

the deceased had 4 dependants, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4^th for his personal expenses, instead of 1/3^rd as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another¹ . Compensation awarded on the head of consortium and other conventional heads is on the lower side.

¶44

Sri Rajendra Hegde Mulkhand, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 justifying the impugned award submits that notional income taken by the Tribunal is on the higher side and compensation awarded on conventional heads is justifiable one.

¶45

Analysis:

¶46

Respondents have not questioned finding of the

¶47

Tribunal that Krishnegowda died in accident occurred on 13.07.2016 at 7:30 a.m due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.K.A42-2933 and the same was insured with respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has not challenged its liability to pay the compensation. The relationship between claimants and

¶48

1(2009) 6 SCC 121

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:48072-DB MFA No.1976/2021

¶50

deceased is also not disputed. As on the date of the accident,

¶51

the deceased was aged 42 years. That is also not in dispute.

¶52

Though the claimants contended that he was earning Rs.600/- per day, there was no proof of the same. Therefore, income of the deceased had to be notionally assessed. There was nothing on record to show that everyday the deceased was getting employment and earning wages of Rs.600/- per day. The accident had occurred in the year 2016. Considering the cost of living and prevailing wage rates, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority has prepared chart of standardized notional wages for the period 2008 to 2022. As per the said chart, for the year 2016 such notional income is considered at Rs.9,500/. As the deceased had no permanent employment, having regard to his age, the Tribunal was justified in including future prospects at 25% in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs . Pranay Sethi and Others² . Thus, his monthly income comes to (9,500 x 25%=2,375) Rs.11,875/-.

¶53

2(2017) 16 SCC 680

¶54

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:48072-DB MFA No.1976/2021

¶55

As per the claim petition, the deceased had 4 dependants. In such event, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma’s case referred to supra, 1/4^th has to be deducted for his personal expenses. Therefore, 3/4^th has to be taken as his contribution to the family, which comes to (11,875 x ¾) = Rs.8,906.25/- rounded to Rs.8,906/-. The applicable multiplier is 14. Thus, compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency is (8,906x12x14)=Rs.14,96,208/-. Medical expenses of

¶56

Rs.68,800/- was awarded based on the evidence adduced by the claimants. That needs to be maintained.

¶57

As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’ s case referred to supra and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram & Ors³ , the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium with escalation of 10%. Similarly, on conventional heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and transportation of dead body, claimants are entitled to sum of Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- with escalation at 10%. Therefore, the just compensation payable is as follows:

¶58

3(2018) 18 SCC 130

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:48072-DB MFA No.1976/2021

¶61

Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 14,96,208/-
Loss of consortium 1,76,000/-
Medical bills 68,800/-
Loss of estate 16,500/-
Funeral expenses and 16,500/-
Transportation of dead body
Total 17,74,008/-
Awarded by Tribunal 15,38,800/-
Enhanced compensation 2,35,208/-

¶62