Partly allowed

Smt. Pinki Devi v. Cheeranda.M.Muddappa

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024MFA/3676/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation for the death of a mason. Court upheld the Tribunal's notional income of Rs.14,500 per month but added future prospects, consortium heads and multiplier 16, enhancing compensation from Rs.22,63,000 to Rs.30,44,200 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.22,63,000 to Rs.30,44,200 at 6% interest; insurer to deposit within eight weeks; shares allocated among appellants; minors' shares fixed-deposited until majority.

Smt. Pinki Devi Vs Cheeranda.M.Muddappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39328 MFA No. 3676 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3676 OF 2023(MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PINKI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE PRAMOD DAS, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶8

SUMAN KUMARI, D/O LATE PRAMOD DAS,

¶9

NIRAJ KUMAR, S/O LATE PRAMOD DAS, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,

¶10

PRIYANSHU KUMARI, D/O LATE PRAMOD DAS, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

PRITI KUMARI, D/O LATE PRAMOD DAS, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,

¶13

ANUSHKA KUMARI, D/O LATE PRAMOD DAS, AGED ABOUT 41/2 YEARS,

¶14

ALL ARE PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT WARD NO.3, TANRA, KALYANPUR BASTI, MOHIUDDIN, NAGAR, SAMSTIPUR, BIHAR STATE-848502.

¶15

ALL ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING AND WORKING AT C/O.SUBBAIAH B.U., BALYATANA HOUSE, HAKATHOOR VILLAGE AND POST, MADIKERI TALUK-571252.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39328 MFA No. 3676 of 2023

¶17

SINCE APPELLANT NO. 2 TO 6 ARE MINORS THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER, SMT.PINKI DEVI (APPELLANT NO.1)

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SMT. SUMA K., ADVOCATE (VC))

¶20

AND:

¶21

CHEERANDA.M.MUDDAPPA, S/O LATE.C.P.MADAIAH, MAJOR, R/AT MUGUTAGERI VILLAGE, PONNAMPET POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571216.

¶22

THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BLOCK NO.16, 1^ST FLOOR, SURAKSHA MEDICALS, G.T.ROAD, MADIKERI - 571 201.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/C/O DATED 13.08.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶25

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.02.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.129/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU MADIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

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

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39328 MFA No. 3676 of 2023

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

Heard Ms.Suma K, learned counsel who appears through video conference representing appellants. Also heard Sri Revish Benni, learned counsel for respondent No.2 who appears physically before this Court.

¶31

This is a claimants’ appeal. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kodagu, in MVC No.129/2020 dated 23.02.2022.

¶32

As against the claim for Rs.36,64,000/-, the Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.22,63,000/- as compensation. Being dissatisfied with the same, the claimants are before this Court.

¶33

Arguing the matter, Ms. Suma K. for appellants submits that Sri. Pramod Das (hereinafter be referred to as the ‘deceased’ for brevity) died in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2020. The first appellant is the wife and appellants two to six are the minor children of the deceased. The deceased as a Mason was earning Rs.900/- per day. The

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39328 MFA No. 3676 of 2023

¶35

deceased was working under a Contractor. The evidence of the said Contractor was produced and the said Contractor was examined as PW3. PW3 clearly deposed that the deceased was working under him and he was paying Rs.900/- per day. However, the Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.14,500/- per month and awarded a very meager sum as compensation, which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶36

Contradicting the submission thus made, learned counsel Sri.Ravish Benni contends that the evidence of PW.3 is produced with a sole intention to extract more money as compensation. PW3 did not produce any proof to show that he was a Contractor by profession. Also no proof is produced that the deceased was working under PW3. Having considered these facts, the Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.14,500/- per month. A perusal of record reveals justification in the said submission.

¶37

When PW3 contends that he is a Contractor by profession, he should at-least produce the relevant documents to establish his occupation. The appellants are under liability to do so. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39328 MFA No. 3676 of 2023

¶39

regarding the occupation of PW3. Having failed in that regard, the appellants cannot rely upon PW3 seeking the Court to hold that the income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.900/per day. This Court does not find any infirmity in the decision taken by the Tribunal to take the notional income of the deceased as Rs.14,500/- per month.

¶40

However, a perusal of the impugned order discloses that Tribunal did not add future prospects. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 34 years by the date of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal should have added 40% of the earnings towards future prospects as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Thus, adding 40% of the earnings towards future prospects, deducting ¼th of the earnings towards personal and living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive, the dependents being six in number and applying appropriate multiplier ‘16’ as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009 SAR (Civ)

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39328 MFA No. 3676 of 2023

¶42

592, the compensation which the appellants are entitled to

¶43

under the head loss of dependency, is as under:

¶44

Description	Amount in Rs.
Notional income per month	14,500-00
Annual income (14,500x12)	1,74,000-00
Add 40% towards future prospects(1,74,000+40%)	2,43,600-00
Deduct 1/4^th towards
personal and living	1,82,700-00
expenses
Applying the appropriate multiplier'16'(1,82,700x16)	29,23,200-00

¶45

Thus, the appellants are entitled to a sum of

¶46

Rs.29,23,200/- under the head 'loss of dependency'.

¶47

As the accident occurred in the year 2020, together

¶48

with the amount awarded under the head 'loss of dependency', appellants are entitled to Rs.16,500 towards funeral expenses and Rs.16,500 towards loss of estate.

¶49

First appellant being the wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.44,000/- under the head loss of spousal consortium, appellants two to six being the children of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.44,000/- under the head loss of parental consortium. Thus, the total compensation the appellants are entitled to under different heads is as under.

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39328 MFA No. 3676 of 2023

¶51

Sl. No	Heads of compensation	Amount in Rs.
1	Loss of dependency	29,23,200-00
2	Funeral expenses	16,500-00
3	Loss of estate	16,500-00
4	Loss of spousal consortium	44,000-00
5	Loss of parental consortium	44,000-00
	Total	30,44,200-00

¶52

The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.22,63,000/- as compensation. However, the justifiable sum which the appellants are entitled to is Rs.30,44,200/-. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶55

ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kodagu, through orders in MVC No.129/2020 dated 23.02.2022 is enhanced from Rs.22,63,000/- to Rs.30,44,200/-.

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39328 MFA No. 3676 of 2023

¶57

iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶58

iv) The second respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶59

v) Out of the enhanced amount, share of the first appellant is 50%.

¶60

vi) The appellants 2 to 6 are entitled to 10% each, out of the remaining 50% of the enhanced sum.

¶61

vii) The first appellant is permitted to withdraw her share along with accrued interest immediately on deposit.

¶62

viii) The amount that fell to the share of appellants two to six shall be kept in Fixed Deposit along with accrued interest in any Nationalized Bank until they attain the age of majority and on their attaining the age of majority, they are entitled to withdraw their shares along with accrued interest.

¶63

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39328 MFA No. 3676 of 2023

¶64

ix) However, the appellants are not entitled for interest on the enhanced sum for the period of delay of 355 days as per the orders on IA 1/2023.

¶65

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶66

¶67

CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Smt. Pinki Devi v. Cheeranda.M.Muddappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pinki Devi v. Cheeranda.M.Muddappa

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. Eramma Vs Mr. Haseena

Afzal Ahmad Vs Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt. Kavitha Basavaraj Uppar Vs Aishwarya Chakraborty

Mohammed Mijaan Vs the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Sri Venkatesh T M Vs the Manager

Narasimha Murthy H R Vs Krishnaiah L C