Partly allowed

Smt. Seema v. Union of India

Karnataka HC16 Jan 2024MFA/3130/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhancement of motor accident compensation for a pedestrian killed by a motorcycle. The court applied Pranay Sethi norms, adding 25% future prospects, revising deduction to one-third, and awarding consortium to three dependants, enhancing total compensation from Rs.6,54,000 to Rs.14,00,052 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.6,54,000 to Rs.14,00,052; original 8% interest undisturbed; enhanced amount at 6% p.a., payable within six weeks.

Smt. Seema Vs Union of India — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:1936 MFA No. 3130 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3130 OF 2020 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SEEMA, D/O LATE IMTHIYAZ AHMED, NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶8

NADEEM, S/O LATE IMTHIYAZ AHMED, NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶9

SMT. AMEENA BE, W/O ABDUL KARIM @ BASHU LAL, NOW AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.11/1, 1ST STREET, BRAD WAY STREET, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE - 560 051. …APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. N.R. RANGEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY LT. GENERAL THE COMMANDANT, T.P.T COY ASC CENTRAL AGRAM POST, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH, CGSC)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:1936 MFA No. 3130 of 2020

¶16

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.741/2017 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 06.03.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.741/2017. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellants seek enhancement of compensation.

¶20

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

¶21

their status before the Tribunal.

¶22

3. Brief facts of the case are as under;

¶23

That on 13.08.2016 at about 10.55 a.m., one

¶24

Imthiyaz Ahmed @ Imthiyaz Pasha S/o. Abdul Kareem was walking as a pedestrian on the left side of the road at Shivaji road, Shivajinagar met with an accident being hit

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:1936 MFA No. 3130 of 2020

¶26

by the bullet motor cycle bearing registration No.08A0596741L, which was ridden by the rider of the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the impact of the said accident, the said Imthiyaz Ahmed fell down and sustained grievous injures. Immediately, he was shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital at Shivajinagar and thereafter, to NIMHANS hospital for better treatment, but he succumbed to the injuries, before reaching the NIMHANS hospital. Due to the occurrence of the accident, a crime came to be registered in Crime No.287/2016 against the rider of the motor cycle.

¶27

3.1 It is stated that prior to the occurrence of accident, deceased Imthiyaz Ahmed was hale and healthy, aged about 48 years, working as Auto Top Cover Layer and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The claimants, who are the children and mother of the deceased were wholly dependant upon the earnings of the deceased Imthiyaz Ahmed. Hence, they filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:1936 MFA No. 3130 of 2020

¶30

3.2 On service of notice, respondent remained absent

¶31

and he was placed Ex parte .

¶32

3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.

¶33

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, claimant No.1 was examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P11.

¶34

3.5 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submission of learned counsel for claimants, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,54,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and respondent being the insurer was directed to deposit the amount within two months.

¶35

3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:1936 MFA No. 3130 of 2020

¶37

It is the vehement contention of the learned

¶38

counsel for appellants-claimants that the tribunal has committed serious error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation and assessed the income of the deceased on the lower side. It is contended that the tribunal has failed to award future prospects at 25% as contemplated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 and also committed an error by deducting 50% of income of deceased towards personal expenses instead of 1/3^rd , as there are three dependants of the deceased. It is further contended that under the head loss of consortium, the tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable compensation. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement of compensation and to allow the appeal preferred by the claimants.

¶39

Per contra , Sri Bheemaiah, learned counsel

¶40

representing respondent-Insurance Company primarily

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:1936 MFA No. 3130 of 2020

¶43

contends that the notice was not served to the respondent. The involvement of the vehicle also is in question. Assessment made by the tribunal with regard to compensation is correct and the same does not call for interference. It is also contended by the learned counsel for respondent that the tribunal has rightly deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses as deceased had one dependent and other two children were adults and capable of earning and maintaining themselves. He further contends that under other heads also the tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation, which does not call for

¶44

interference. He also contends that the tribunal has awarded an interest at 8% p.a., which is also on the higher side. Therefore, on these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶45

Having heard learned counsel for appellantsclaimants and learned counsel for respondent, perused the judgment and award passed by the tribunal, it is seen that the accident occurred on 13.08.2016. Deceased was a

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:1936 MFA No. 3130 of 2020

¶47

pedestrian on the left side of the road, rider of the motor cycle dashed against the deceased, due to which deceased fell down and died on the way to hospital. In order to substantiate these aspects, the claimants have produced the documents as Exs.P1 to P11, out of which, Exs.P1 to P7 are the police records and Exs.P8 to P11 are the records to show the age for assessment of compensation. Filing of the FIR and laying of charge sheet against the rider of the motor cycle is not in dispute and not challenged, whereby it can be said that the rider of the motor cycle has accepted the charges laid against him. Therefore, the negligence is rightly attributed against the rider of the motor cycle. As on the date of occurrence of accident, deceased was aged 48 years. To establish the same, Ex.P8-voter ID is produced by the claimants. The tribunal has taken the age of the deceased to be 50 years, at the time of accident, the same does not call for interference. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at '13', which does not call for interference.

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:1936 MFA No. 3130 of 2020

¶49

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income of the deceased, the tribunal having assessed the age to be 50 years and the multiplier at '13', which does not call for interference. The income taken by the tribunal is Rs.8,000/per month as notional income, no documentary proof is produced before the tribunal to show the income. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.9,500/- for the accident of the year 2016. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.9,500/-. The tribunal has failed to add 25% towards future prospects, which requires to be

¶50

added in the present case for computation of compensation. The tribunal has deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. However, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, the deceased is a married person having 2 to 3 dependents and the tribunal ought to have taken 1/3^rd towards personal and living expenses.

¶51

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:1936 MFA No. 3130 of 2020

¶52

Accordingly, in this case also 1/3^rd is taken as deduction. Therefore, the income shall be taken as Rs.7,917/(Rs.9,500/- + 25% - 1/3^rd ). Hence, loss of dependency would be Rs.12,35,052/- (Rs.7,917/- x 12 x 13) as against Rs.6,24,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶53

The tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head consortium. As there are three dependents, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- per head as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 followed by Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 . Therefore, under the head of loss of consortium, the claimants are entitled for Rs.1,20,000/(Rs.40,000/- x 3) along with 10%

¶54

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:1936 MFA No. 3130 of 2020

¶55

escalation towards one block period, which would be Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- + 10%).

¶56

The tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, the same does not call for interference. Whereas, 10% escalation towards one block period is required to be granted, which would be Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000 + 10%) in all.

¶57

In view of the above, the claimants would be

¶58

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,00,052/- as

¶59

against Rs.6,54,000/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶60

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	12,35,052-00
Loss of consortium	1,32,000-00
Loss of estate and	33,000-00
transportation of dead body and funeral expenses
TOTAL	14,00,052-00

¶61

Though learned counsel for respondentInsurance Company contends that the interest awarded by

¶62

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:1936 MFA No. 3130 of 2020

¶63

the tribunal is on the higher side, it is also to be noted that the respondent has not preferred appeal questioning the judgment and award of the tribunal nor cross objections in this appeal. Under the circumstances, the appellantsclaimants cannot be put into worst situation for having approached this Court. Hence, I do not find any reason to

¶64

interfere with the same.

¶65

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ; ii) The judgment and award dated 06.03.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC.No.741/2017 is modified;

¶68

iii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.14,00,052/- as against Rs.6,54,000/-;

¶69

iv) The interest awarded by the tribunal at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.6,54,000/- is left undisturbed. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum;

¶70

12 -

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:1936 MFA No. 3130 of 2020

¶72

v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶73

vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

CPN CT: BHK

Smt. Seema v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Seema v. Union of India

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. T Mahadeva Vs the Manager

Smt Lakshmi Vs Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd.

Usha Vs Anand K M

Mr.Harish H.N. @ Kumar Vs the Division Manager

Sri Srinivas T B S Vs Sri China Srinivasalu Reddy

Sri. D C Nagendra Vs Sri. Kanakappa