Partly allowed

Smt R Sujatha v. Smt M Vidhya

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2024MFA/4223/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhancement of compensation for the death of a 33-year-old driving school owner in a car accident. The court raised notional income from Rs.7,500 to Rs.9,500 per month with 40% future prospects, enhanced consortium and funeral heads per Supreme Court precedents, awarding an additional Rs.5,84,200 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.5,84,200 with 6% p.a. interest; rest of the Tribunal's award maintained; insurer to deposit within four weeks.

Smt R Sujatha Vs Smt M Vidhya — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49491-DB MFA No. 4223 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4223 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT R SUJATHA W/O LATE B VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶11

BABY B V HASINI D/O LATE B VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,

¶12

BABY B V GREESHMA, D/O LATE B.V VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT SHANTHAMMA, W/O BASAVA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶15

SRI BASAVA RAJU S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶16

THE APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 SINCE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN, THE 1^ST APPELLANT

¶17

ALL ARE R/AT D.NO.1776, SHANTHI NILAYA, 5^TH CROSS, BOVI COLONY, BEHIND SANTHE GATE, KOLAR TOWN …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUGUNA R REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49491-DB MFA No. 4223 of 2018

¶19

AND:

¶20

SMT M VIDHYA D/O MADHAVA RAJU, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.12, 2^ND FLOOR HOUSE NO.54, HIMAGIRI APARTMENTS, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, SILVER OAK STREET, J P NAGAR, 7^TH PHASE, BANGALORE - 560021

¶21

THE BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.121, 9^TH FLOOR, ESTATE BUILDINGS, DICKENSON ROAD, BANGALORE - 560019

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 SERVED)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.119/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ACJM, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:49491-DB MFA No. 4223 of 2018

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

¶31

Though the matter is coming up for admission, with the consent of both parties the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶32

Questioning the adequacy of compensation awarded to them, claimants in MVC No.119/2016 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kolar, have preferred the above appeal.

¶33

The appellants were claimants and respondent Nos.1 & 2 were respondent Nos.1 & 2 respectively in MVC No.119/2016. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶34

The claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 & 3 are minor children and claimant Nos.4 & 5 are the aged parents of deceased Sri.B.Vijaykumar. On the intervening night of 09/10.03.2016 at 00.30 hours when B.Vijaykumar was traveling in car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MJ-9606 near Kappalamadagu Village on Bangalore-Chennai NH-75, Mulbagal Taluk, the said car rammed into a lorry. Due to the injuries

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:49491-DB MFA No. 4223 of 2018

¶37

suffered in the accident, B.Vijaykumar died on the spot. At the time of accident respondent Nos.1 & 2 were the registered owner and insurer of said car.

¶38

The claimants filed MVC No.119/2016 against respondents claiming compensation of Rs.45,00,000/contending that the deceased was running a motor driving school in the name and style of 'Sri.Vinayaka Driving School' and earning Rs.40,000/- to 60,000/- p.m. They were all dependent on his income. They claimed that due to his untimely death, they have lost their bread winner and respondents are liable to compensate the damages.

¶39

Respondent No.2-insurer alone contested the petition denying the occurrence of the accident solely due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the car, age, occupation, income of the deceased and its liability to pay the compensation as claimed.

¶40

In support of their claim, claimants examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-16. Respondents did not lead any evidence. The Tribunal, on hearing the parties, by the impugned award held that the

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49491-DB MFA No. 4223 of 2018

¶42

accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver of car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MJ-9606. The Tribunal based on post mortem report and inquest report, considered the age of the deceased between 31 to 35 years, notionally assessed his income at Rs.7,500/- p.m. added 40% to the same by way of future prospects, deducted 1/4^th for his personal expenses, applied 16 multiplier and awarded compensation of Rs.15,12,000/- on the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of Rs.15,84,000/- on different heads as follows:

¶43

Loss of dependency	Rs.15,12,000
Loss of consortium	Rs.40,000
Loss of estate	Rs.15,000
Funeral and obsequies expenses	Rs.15,000
Conveyance	Rs.2,000
Total	Rs.15,84,000

¶44

It was ordered that respondent No.2-insurer shall

¶45

pay the said compensation with interest at 6% p.a. Claimants have challenged the said award on the ground that the compensation awarded is on the lower side.

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:49491-DB MFA No. 4223 of 2018

¶47

Smt.Suguna R.Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the notional income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the compensation awarded on the other heads is also on lower side. She submits that the compensation awarded on the head of consortium and funeral expenses is not in accordance with the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others¹ and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram & Ors.²

¶48

Per contra, Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there was no actual proof of income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in assessing his income notionally at Rs.7,500/- p.m. He submits that the compensation awarded on other heads is also just one.

¶49

On considering the submissions of both side and examination of the material on record, the question that arises for consideration of the Court is “ Whether the compensation

¶50

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶51

2 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:49491-DB MFA No. 4223 of 2018

¶54

awarded to the appellants-claimants under the impugned

¶55

award is just one”?

¶56

Analysis

¶57

The relationship between the claimants and deceased Sri.B.Vijaykumar is not in dispute. Similarly, the respondents have not challenged the finding of the Tribunal that during the intervening night of 09-10.03.2016 at 00.30 hours when B.Vijaykumar was traveling in car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MJ-9606, accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the said driver leading to death of B.Vijaykumar.

¶58

Though the claimants contended that B.Vijaykumar was running 'Sri.Vinayaka Driving School' and earning Rs.40,000/- to 60,000/- per month, no proof of his actual income was produced. The claimants neither produced the bank statement of the deceased nor his income tax returns. They did not choose to examine any witness to say that claimant had many customers and they have paid the sum as claimed. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in resorting to the assessment of income notionally. However, having regard to the facts that the deceased was aged 33 years, running a

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:49491-DB MFA No. 4223 of 2018

¶61

motor driving school and the accident had taken place in the year 2016, the notional income of Rs.7,500/- assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side. It would be just and fair to consider his income notionally at Rs.9,500/- per month.

¶62

Having regard to the age, occupation of the deceased and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case referred to supra, 40% for future prospects has to be superadded to his income, therefore, his monthly income comes to Rs.13,300/- (Rs.9,500 + 3,800 (40%)). In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another³ , as the deceased had 5 dependants, 1/4^th (Rs.13,300 X 1/4 = Rs.3,325) has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and applicable multiplier is 16. Therefore, the just compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency is :

¶63

Rs.9,975 x 12 x 16 =Rs.19,15,200/-.

¶64

As per the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's and Magma General Insurance Company

¶65

3 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶66

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:49491-DB MFA No. 4223 of 2018

¶67

Limited's cases referred to supra, claimant Nos.1 to 5 are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each on the head of consortium with escalation of 10%. Similarly, they are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- on the head of loss of estate, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses with escalation of 10%. Therefore, just compensation

¶68

payable is as follows:

¶69

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount
1	Loss of dependency	Rs.19,15,200
2	Loss of consortium	Rs.2,20,000
	(Rs.44,000 X 5)
3	Loss of estate	Rs.16,500
4	Funeral expenses	Rs.16,500
	Total	Rs.21,68,200
	Awarded by Tribunal	Rs.15,84,000
En	hanced compensation	Rs.5,84,200

¶70

The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6%

¶71

p.a.

¶72

For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal

¶73

deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶76

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:49491-DB MFA No. 4223 of 2018

¶77

ii. The appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.5,84,200/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶78

iii. Respondent No.2-insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶79

iv. On such deposit, the Tribunal shall release the shares of claimant Nos.1, 4 & 5 to them digitally and invest the shares of claimant Nos.2 & 3 in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank of the choice of the claimants till they attain majority.

¶80

v. The rest of the award is maintained.

¶81

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶82

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶83

BSR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Smt R Sujatha v. Smt M Vidhya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt R Sujatha v. Smt M Vidhya

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

Satish @ Satishkumar K Vs Karthik Kumar

Mamtaz Vs Vidyuth Shetty

M/S Icici Lombard General Vs Mr Charles Mithun Shiri

Bharathi Vs P Sureshkumar

Ranga Naik Vs Ramadas Naik

Narayanamma Vs K. G. Kadirappa