Partly allowed

Smt Rama v. Nagaraja M

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2024MFA/4016/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant appealed for enhancement of motor accident compensation after her husband died in an auto rickshaw collision. The court revised income to Rs.12,500 with 10% future prospects, applied one-third deduction and multiplier 11, added escalation on consortium, estate and funeral heads, enhancing compensation from Rs.7,26,100 to Rs.12,89,744 with interest at 6% payable by the insurer within four

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.7,26,100 to Rs.12,89,744 with 6% interest, payable by respondent-Insurance Company within four weeks; other tribunal terms intact.

Smt Rama Vs Nagaraja M — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:1694 MFA No. 4016 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4016 OF 2022 (MV-D)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT.RAMA W/O.LATE RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.291A, 15^TH CROSS CHIKKA BOMMASANDRA YALAHANKA NEW TOWN GKVK POST, BENGALURU 560 065

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI K.V.NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

NAGARAJA M. S/O.GOWRAPPA MAJOR ARAMANEKERE SHUBHASNAGAR, SORABA ROAD SAGARA TALUK, 1/8/12 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

¶12

THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE 5^TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD NEAR HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU 560 027

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O/D 15.12.2023)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:1694 MFA No. 4016 of 2022

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.12.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.4178/2018 BY XII ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging

¶21

the judgment and award dated 30.12.2021 passed in MVC.No.4178/2018 by XII Additional Judge and ACMM, Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶22

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶24

On 10.04.2018 at about 3.30 - 3.45 p.m., while the

¶25

deceased Radhakrishnan Nair was walking on the left side foot path of NH-206, near TVS showroom, Sagar town,

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:1694 MFA No. 4016 of 2022

¶28

Shivamogga with due caution by observing the vehicles, suddenly the driver of an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-15-3915 without following the traffic rules, in order to endanger human life and safety, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased from behind, as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Shivamogga Government Sagar Hospital, thereafter, to Shivamogga Nanjappa Hospital, where he took first aid treatment and thereafter, on the advice of the Doctor, he was shifted to Bengaluru Victoria Hospital and thereafter, on 12.04.2018 at 11.50 a.m. he succumbed to the injuries.

¶29

3.1 It is stated that the driver of the auto rickshaw

¶30

was implicated in Crime No.222/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. It is further stated that the deceased was working as a Building Centering Contractor and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The claimant is the wife of the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:1694 MFA No. 4016 of 2022

¶33

deceased. In view of sudden and untimely death of the deceased, the claimant has lost her bread earner, his love and affection and also mentally and financially. Hence, she filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶34

3.2 On service of notice, the respondents filed their respective statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶35

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

¶36

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, claimant No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the respondents examined witnesses as RWs.1 to 6 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 to R23.

¶37

3.5 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:1694 MFA No. 4016 of 2022

¶40

compensation of Rs.7,26,100/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to the claimant.

¶41

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

¶42

Learned counsel for appellant-claimant submits that the tribunal ought to have deducted only 1/3^rd towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 50%, in view of the fact that the deceased was married. The tribunal has misdirected itself in not assessing the proper income and has committed an error in awarding lesser compensation under other heads. On these grounds, he seeks to enhance the compensation.

¶43

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2Insurance Company sustains the judgment and award of the tribunal and contends that the tribunal has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. On these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:1694 MFA No. 4016 of 2022

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and learned counsel for respondentInsurance Company, the accident occurred on 10.04.2018 and age of the deceased as on the date of occurrence of accident was 55 years. The tribunal taken the income at Rs.9,000/-, whereas the notional income chart stipulates the income of Rs.12,500/- per month for the accident of the year 2018. The tribunal rightly taken 10% towards future prospects, which does not call for interference. The tribunal has deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. However, it ought to have taken 1/3^rd , as the deceased was a married person. The appropriate multiplier would be '11', which is rightly applied by the tribunal and the same does not call for interference. Therefore, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs.12,10,044/- (Rs.12,500/- + 10% = Rs.13,750/- - 1/3^rd = Rs.9,167/- x 12 x 11).

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:1694 MFA No. 4016 of 2022

¶49

The tribunal awarded Rs.2,700/- towards medical expenses, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶50

The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, which does not call for interference. However, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, 10% escalation for one block period on the same to be awarded under this head, which would come to Rs.44,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + 10%).

¶51

The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses, in all, Rs.30,000/-, which do not call for interference. However, as per the aforesaid decision, 10% escalation for one block period on the same to be awarded under this head, which would come to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 10%).

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:1694 MFA No. 4016 of 2022

¶53

In view of the above, the claimant would be

¶54

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.12,89,744/- as

¶55

against Rs.7,26,100/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶56

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	12,10,044-00
Loss of consortium	44,000-00
Loss of estate and Funeral and transportation expenses	33,000-00
Medical expenses	2,700-00
TOTAL	12,89,744-00

¶57

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶60

ii) The judgment and award dated 30.12.2021 passed in MVC.No.4178/2018 by XII Additional Judge and ACMM, Small Causes, Bengaluru, is modified;

¶61

iii) The claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.12,89,744/- as against Rs.7,26,100/-;

¶62

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:1694 MFA No. 4016 of 2022

¶64

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company with interest at 6% per annum, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶65

v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant upon proper verification;

¶66

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

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Smt Rama v. Nagaraja M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rama v. Nagaraja M

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 Munivenkatappa Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Vijaya Kanchan Vs Peeter Santhosh Rodrigues

Sri Byra Reddy Vs the National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri. T Mahadeva Vs the Manager

Smt Lakshmi Vs Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd.

Usha Vs Anand K M