Allowed

Smt Menaka @ Manka v. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2024MFA/2963/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants appealed against a motor accident award for the death of a pedestrian hit by a motorcycle. The High Court added 40% future prospects to assessed income of Rs.6,000/- per month with multiplier 17, awarded consortium and other conventional heads, enhancing compensation from Rs.11,62,400/- to Rs.14,94,588/- with interest at 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced from Rs.11,62,400/- to Rs.14,94,588/- with interest at 6% p.a., payable by the insurer within six weeks.

Smt Menaka @ Manka Vs M/S United India Insurance Co… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33738 MFA No. 2963 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2963 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MENAKA @ MANKA, W/O LATE. BIR BAHADUR @ BIRIYA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶9

MASTER UMESH, S/O LATE. BIR BAHADUR @ BIRIYA, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,

¶10

BABY ROOPASHREE D/O LATE. BIR BAHADUR @ BIRIYA, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,

¶11

MASTER. SANTHOSH, S/O LATE. BIR BAHADUR @ BIRIYA, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT, #374, CHAMUNDINAGAR, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085

¶14

APPELLANT NOS. 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS HENCE THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THIER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE FIRST APPELLANT VIZ SMT. MENAKA @ MANAKA …APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR D S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:33738 MFA No. 2963 of 2018

¶18

AND:

¶19

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., #1, 1^ST FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS DWARAKANAGAR, 100 FEET RING ROAD, HOSAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU -560 082. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶20

SHEKAR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT MAJOR #302, HOSAKEREHALLI, CHAMUNDINAGAR, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU -560 085

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. P B RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 11.12.2023)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.4963/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII A.S.C.J., COURT OF SMALL CAUSES ,MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH25), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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

¶28

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has

¶29

been filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33738 MFA No. 2963 of 2018

¶31

award dated 06-10-2017 passed by XXI ACMM & XXIII ASCJ Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru, in MVC 4963/2013.

¶32

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 10-05-2012 at about 10 p.m., one Bir Bahadur @ Biriya was walking on the extreme side of the road near Sri Vajaramuneshwara temple, Uttarahalli, Bangalore South, at that time, a Honda Dio bearing registration No. KA.05-EN-6096 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the victim. As a result of the aforesaid accident, he sustained grievous injuries and though he was shifted to NIMHANS and provided the treatment, he succumbed to the injuries.

¶33

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

¶34

Upon service of notice, respondent No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No.2,

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33738 MFA No. 2963 of 2018

¶36

despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.

¶37

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-Menaka, wife of the deceased as PW-1, and got exhibited documents, namely, Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On the other hand, respondent No.1 neither examined any witness nor produced any documents.

¶38

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 motor cycle by its rider, 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.11,62,400/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., and directed respondent No.1-Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:33738 MFA No. 2963 of 2018

¶41

Sri Sridhar D.S., learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶42

a) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and had a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- by working as a Coolie and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -vPRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], 40% of the income of the deceased has to be added towards ‘future prospects’.

¶43

b) Secondly, he has contended that 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’.

¶44

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

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33738 MFA No. 2963 of 2018

¶46

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

¶47

8. Per contra, Sri P.B. Raju, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following countercontentions:

¶48

a) Firstly, it is contended that since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’ and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any 'future prospects'.

¶49

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.

¶50

c) Thirdly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'loss of consortium and loss of love and affection' is on the higher side contrary to the Judgment of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance.

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:33738 MFA No. 2963 of 2018

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award and the original records of the Tribunal.

¶55

It is not in dispute that Bir Bahadur @ Biriya died in the road traffic accident occurred on 10-05-2012 due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending motor cycle bearing No.KA.05.EN.6096.

¶56

The specific case of the claimants is that, at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 30 years, was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added towards future

¶57

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:33738 MFA No. 2963 of 2018

¶58

prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘PRANAY SETHI’ (supra) since deceased was aged about 30 years. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4^th of the income of the deceased for his personal and living expenses and applied '17' multiplier which is applicable to the age of the deceased. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.12,85,200/- (Rs.6,000/- (6,000+2,400/-(40%)= (8,400/- -2,100/-) x 12 x 17=12,85,200/-) towards ‘loss of dependency’.

¶59

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’. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the

¶60

case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY’

¶61

(supra) claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium' and claimant Nos.2, 3 and 4, children of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’.

¶62

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:33738 MFA No. 2963 of 2018

¶63

The compensation of Rs.19,388/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘medical expenses’ is based on the medical bills produced by the claimants and is deemed

¶64

just and reasonable.

¶65

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

¶66

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in Rs.)
Loss of dependency	12,85,200/-
Funeral expenses	15,000/-
Loss of estate	15,000/-
Loss of spousal consortium	40,000/-
Loss of Parental consortium	1,20,000/-
Medical expenses	19,388/-
Total	14,94,588/-

¶67

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

a) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶70

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶71

c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,94,588/- as against Rs.11,62,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶72

10 -

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:33738 MFA No. 2963 of 2018

¶74

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.

¶75

e) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced 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.

¶76

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

¶77

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶78

tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

Smt Menaka @ Manka v. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Menaka @ Manka v. M/S United India Insurance Co. 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

Sri. Ambarish @ Amresh Vs the Manager

Sri. Mahesh L S Vs Sri. Mauhmmed Shane Rab

Sri Ramchandra Kini Vs Sri Ananda Ramachandra Kini

Sanjeevamma Vs the Manager

Mrs Ramani Vs Abdul Khader

Sri. Gowrisha Vs Sri. Somashetty