Allowed

Narasimhappa @ Narasimhamurthy N v. Royal Sundram General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2024MFA/2455/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhancement of motor accident compensation for the death of a 19-year-old painter in a road traffic accident. The court applied notional income guidelines plus 40% future prospects, multiplier 18, and standard heads, enhancing compensation from Rs.8,15,242 to Rs.17,82,442 with interest at 6% per annum.

What the court decided

AI extract

Narasimhappa @ Narasimhamurthy N Vs Royal Sundram… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31395 MFA No. 2455 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2455 OF 2019 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NARASIMHAPPA @ NARASIMHAMURTHY N AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O.ANJINAPPA

¶8

SMT LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶9

W/O NARASIMHAPPA @ NARASIMHAMURTHY N

¶10

HARISHA

¶11

S/O NARASIMHAPPA @ NARASIMHAMURTHY N AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDENT OF

¶13

VEERLAGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA-562108.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY D.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

AND:

¶18

ROYAL SUNDRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.187/7, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX HOSUR MIAN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU-560027 REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶19

SATHISH

¶20

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O.CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA R/A.NO.91/48, 1ST FLOOR 8TH CROSS, 22ND MAIN ROAD

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:31395 MFA No. 2455 of 2019

¶23

HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560102

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI.,ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 12.12.2020)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 28.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.72/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MACT, GOWRIBIDANUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

¶31

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 28.08.2018 passed by the MACT, Gowribidanur in MVC 72/2017.

¶32

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 11.03.2017, when the deceased Prakasha was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-40-Y-4816 near Makalidurga cross, Tubagere Hobli,

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31395 MFA No. 2455 of 2019

¶34

Doddaballapura Taluk, at that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-01-MH-6159 which was being driven in

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

Upon service of notice, the respondents appeared

¶38

through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶39

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

¶40

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 got exhibited

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31395 MFA No. 2455 of 2019

¶42

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P55. On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R.. 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 vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,15,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶43

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

¶44

a) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of the accident and had a monthly income of Rs.20,000/- by doing painting work. However, the assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31395 MFA No. 2455 of 2019

¶46

b) Secondly, the Tribunal has erred in applying multiplier based on the age of mother of the deceased. The same is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of SARLA VERMA.

¶47

c) Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE

¶48

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

¶49

SC 5157], in cases, where the deceased was selfemployed or received a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ is warranted when the deceased was below the age of 40 years. This principle shall be considered in the present case.

¶50

d) Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’.

¶51

e) Fourthly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL

¶52

INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ

¶53

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31395 MFA No. 2455 of 2019

¶54

2782] , each of the claimants is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

a) Firstly, although the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, they have failed to substantiate their claim with supporting documents. Consequently, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

¶59

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:31395 MFA No. 2455 of 2019

¶60

b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’.

¶61

c) Thirdly, 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.

¶62

d) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS – V- VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS DISPOSED OF ON 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side.

¶63

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

¶64

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

¶65

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:31395 MFA No. 2455 of 2019

¶66

It is not in dispute that Prakasha died in the road traffic accident occurred on 11.03.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶67

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but failed to produce supporting documents to substantiate their claim. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. According to 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, 40% has to be 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.15,400/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of

¶68

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:31395 MFA No. 2455 of 2019

¶69

SARLA VERMA , multiplier has to be applied based on the

¶70

age of the deceased. Consequently, the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘18’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.16,63,200/- (Rs.15,4001218*50%) on account of ‘loss of dependency’ as against Rs.756,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘loss of estate’.

¶71

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’.

¶72

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

¶73

the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.1 and 2, parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of

¶74

‘loss of filial consortium’.

¶75

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:31395 MFA No. 2455 of 2019

¶76

13. The compensation of Rs.9,242/- awarded by the

¶77

Tribunal under the head of ‘medical expenses’ is based on the medical bills produced by the claimants and is deemed

¶78

just and reasonable.

¶79

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

¶80

compensation:

¶81

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	16,63,200
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of filial consortium	80,000
Medical expenses	9,242
Total	17,82,442

¶82

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶83

ORDER

¶84

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶85

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶86

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:31395 MFA No. 2455 of 2019

¶87

c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

¶88

Rs.17,82,442/- as against Rs.815,242/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶89

d) Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra) , the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

¶90

e) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest 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.

¶91

f) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount shall be made in accordance with the terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶92

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶93

¶94

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Narasimhappa @ Narasimhamurthy N v. Royal Sundram General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Narasimhappa @ Narasimhamurthy N v. Royal Sundram General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baby Manasa Vs Sri Lakshmana Gowda B N

Mrs. Meena Vs Mrs. Rehana Nazeer

Smt. T. Dhanalakshmi Vs Sri. K. Kumar @ Madhukumar

Ravikumar. H. K. Vs Shivanna

Nagarajanaik Vs Vinod Kumar

Sri Narayana Singh Vs by Its Manager