Partly allowed

Smt Rukmini v. Anthony Waste Handling Cell Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024MFA/2149/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a motor accident appeal in part, enhancing compensation from 1,48,000 to 5,10,040. The court corrected the notional income assessment and awarded additional damages for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of spousal consortium.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation to Rs.5,10,040 deposited by the insurance company with interest at 6% per annum within six weeks.

Smt Rukmini Vs Anthony Waste Handling Cell Pvt. Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38899 MFA No. 2149 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2149 OF 2020 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT RUKMINI W/O LATE C PADMANABHA ACHAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O NO. 6-90B, ANUGRAHA HOUSE 6TH BLOCK, KRISHNAPURA SURATHKAL MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. - 575 014 …APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. JEEVAN K.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

ANTHONY WASTE HANDLING CELL PVT LTD ORNATE MALL, NAVABHARATH CIRCLE NO.13-12/1395/20, KODIALBAIL MANGALURU - 575 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶12

BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD., SRI VITTAL SURATHKAL MANGALURU - 575 014

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI.JWALA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.390/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MANGALURU D.K, PARTLY

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38899 MFA No. 2149 of 2020

¶17

ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

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 claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28.10.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.390/2018.

¶22

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 08.08.2017 at about 1.45 p.m., when the deceased Padmanabha was standing at bus stand near Dwara of Raghavendra Matt, Hosabettu on NH.66, at that time, a pick up vehicle bearing registration No.KA-19/AB6341, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of the

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38899 MFA No. 2149 of 2020

¶24

aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶25

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

¶26

Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed separate written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶27

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 other four witnesses as PW-2 to PW-4, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On behalf of respondents, no witness was examined and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1. 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

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38899 MFA No. 2149 of 2020

¶29

vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,48,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶30

The learned counsel for the claimant submits that as on the date of the accident the deceased was getting a pension of Rs.27,931/- and his wife is getting Rs.8,086/monthly pension. The Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.1,950/-, which is on the lower side. Hence, sought to allow the appeal.

¶31

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits as follows:

¶32

i) Firstly, although the claimants claim that the deceased was getting a pension of Rs.27,931/-per month they have not produced any document to prove the same. PW3 – the in-charge treasury officer has deposed that as

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38899 MFA No. 2149 of 2020

¶34

per the register maintained in the treasury the deceased was getting Rs.1,950/- per month. On that basis, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income.

¶35

ii) Secondly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶36

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

¶37

It is not in dispute that Padmanabhachar died in the road traffic accident occurred on 08.08.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶38

The claimant claims that deceased was earning Rs.27,931/- as monthly pension. But as per the evidence of PW-3, the in-charge treasury officer, the deceased was getting a monthly pension of Rs.1,950/-. But, as per the evidence of PW-1, now, the wife of the deceased is getting

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38899 MFA No. 2149 of 2020

¶40

a pension of Rs.8,860/-. In view of the controversy, I am of the opinion that the notional income has to be assessed as per 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, the Tribunal

¶41

rightly deducted 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount, i.e., Rs.7,334/- has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 70 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘5’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,40,040/(Rs.7,334125) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶42

In addition, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

¶43

LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC

¶44

5157], the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/on account of ‘loss of estate’ and

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:38899 MFA No. 2149 of 2020

¶47

compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’. Claimant, the wife of the deceased is also entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

¶48

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶49

compensation:

¶50

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	440,040
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of spousal consortium	40,000
Total	5,10,040

¶51

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶54

(ii) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶55

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38899 MFA No. 2149 of 2020

¶56

(iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,10,040/- as against Rs.1,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶57

(iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶58

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶59

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Smt Rukmini v. Anthony Waste Handling Cell Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rukmini v. Anthony Waste Handling Cell Pvt. Ltd.

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

Smt. Kamale Bai Vs Rudresha a T

Smt. Shruthi B Sollapuri Vs Sri. Dilip Kumar S

Smt Rizwana Nawaz Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Smt Saritha H G Vs Sri Rajesh Naik

Sri. Channakeshavappa @ Channakeshava Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkatesh Vs Kantha K. M.