Partly allowed

Asha Ashok Gudigar v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2024MFA/2921/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhancement of compensation for the death of a carpenter in a road traffic accident caused by a lorry. The court reassessed notional income at Rs.12,500 per month with 25% future prospects, applied multiplier 13, added consortium heads, enhancing total compensation to Rs.20,18,125 at 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.13,86,176 to Rs.20,18,125 at 6% p.a. interest; Insurance Company directed to deposit within six weeks.

Asha Ashok Gudigar Vs Reliance General Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:32438 MFA No. 2921 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2921 OF 2020 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ASHA ASHOK GUDIGAR W/O LATE ASHOK GUDIGAR NOW AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶8

KUM ANKITA GUDIGAR D/O LATE ASHOK GUDIGAR NOW AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS

¶9

MAST BHUAVAN ASHOK GUDIGAR S/O LATE ASHOK GUDIGAR NOW AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS

¶10

APPELLANT NOs. 2 & 3 ARE MINORS

¶11

REP BY THEIR MOTHER ASHA ASHOK GUDUGAR AS A NATURAL GUARDIAN

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SUMANGALA RAGHUVEER GUDIGAR W/O LATE RAGHUVEER GUDIGAR NOW AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT BANASALE HONNAVARA, MANKI, UTTARA KANNADA.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N R.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING CENTENARY BUILDING, M G ROAD BANGALORE. REP BY ITS MANAGER

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:32438 MFA No. 2921 of 2020

¶20

TOOBA TRADING CO., ADIVALA VILLAGE NH-4 ROAD HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577598. REP BY ITS MANAGER

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. LINGARAJ H S.,ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 13.08.2024)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3703/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-25), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

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 27.08.2019 passed by the MACT, Bangalore in MVC 3703/2018.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32438 MFA No. 2921 of 2020

¶29

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 25.04.2018 when the deceased Ashok Gudigar was proceeding on scooter bearing registration No.KA-30-R-3913 from Honnavara towards Bhatkal, at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-16-C-0764 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.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32438 MFA No. 2921 of 2020

¶34

the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove the case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced. 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.13,86,176/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶35

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

¶36

a) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was aged about 47 years at the time of the accident and had a monthly income of Rs.25,000/- by working as a Carpenter.

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32438 MFA No. 2921 of 2020

¶38

However, the assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.

¶39

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

¶40

SC 5157], in cases, where the deceased was selfemployed or received a fixed salary, an addition of 25% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ is warranted when the deceased was between the age group of 40-50 years. The said principle has been rightly considered by the Tribunal.

¶41

c) 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’.

¶42

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

¶43

INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782] , each of the claimants is entitled to compensation

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:32438 MFA No. 2921 of 2020

¶45

of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

a) Firstly, although the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, they have failed to substantiate their claim with supporting documents. Consequently, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

¶50

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

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:32438 MFA No. 2921 of 2020

¶52

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.

¶53

d) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS –

¶54

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 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side.

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

It is not in dispute that Ashok Gudigar died in the road traffic accident occurred on 25.04.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:32438 MFA No. 2921 of 2020

¶59

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- 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 2018, the notional income of the deceased shall be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 25% 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.15,625/-. Since there are 4 dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/4^th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 47 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘13’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.18,28,125/- (Rs.15,6251213*3/4) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶60

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:32438 MFA No. 2921 of 2020

¶61

In addition, the claimants are entitled to

¶62

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, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

¶63

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.2 and 3, children of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’ and claimant No.4, mother of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’.

¶64

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

¶65

Compensation under	Amount in
different Heads	(Rs.)
Loss of dependency	18,28,125

¶66

10 -

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:32438 MFA No. 2921 of 2020

¶68

Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of spousal consortium	40,000
Loss of Parental consortium	80,000
Loss of Filial consortium	40,000
Total	20,18,125

¶69

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶72

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶73

c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

¶74

Rs.20,18,125/- as against Rs.13,86,176/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶75

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.

¶76

11 -

¶77

NC: 2024:KHC:32438 MFA No. 2921 of 2020

¶78

e) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

¶79

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.

¶80

f) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount

¶81

shall be made in accordance with the terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶82

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶83

¶84

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Asha Ashok Gudigar v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Ashok Gudigar v. Reliance General Insurance Company 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 Gangamma Vs Aboobakkar

Siddamallappa Vs Gangadharappa

Smt Yellamma Vs Sri C Shivakumar

Mr Jagadish Vs the Regional Manager

Sri. C. Mallappan Vs Sri. K. S. Vishwanatha

Ammani Varghese Vs the Assistant Commissioner