Partly allowed

Shambulingaswamy @ Shambulingappa v. Ananthakrishnan R Nayar

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2024MFA/4336/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhancement of compensation for the death of a young heavy-vehicle driver in a road traffic accident. Court assessed income at Rs.18,000 per month with future prospects, set aside Tribunal's 75% contributory negligence finding, and enhanced compensation to Rs.35,77,200.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.31,41,350 at 6% interest payable by respondent No.3 Insurance Company to claimants Nos.1 to 3

Shambulingaswamy @ Shambulingappa Vs Ananthakrishnan… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26919 MFA No. 4336 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4336 OF 2020 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHAMBULINGASWAMY @ SHAMBULINGAPPA S/O LATE MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶9

SOWBHAGYA

¶10

W/O SHAMBULINGASWAMY @ SHAMBULINGAPPA

¶11

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶12

POOJA W/O LATE SANTHOSH @ MAHADEVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

¶13

APPELLANT NO. 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT HEGGAVADI VILLAGE, SANTHEMARAHALLI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DIST.

¶14

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

MAMATHA H.S. W/O GANESH D/O SHAMBULINGASWAMY

¶16

@ SHAMBULINGAPPA R/AT YALAVARAHUNDI VILLAGE, T.NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

ANANTHAKRISHNAN R NAYAR S/O P.S.RAJASHEKARAN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT KADAKKAL HOUSE,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:26919 MFA No. 4336 of 2020

¶23

KUMARA KOM, SOUTH POST, KOTTAYAM, KERALA STATE-6860001.

¶24

RICHARD ABRAHAM MAJOR, S/O K.J.ABRAHAM R/AT KODAKASERIAL HOUSE, PATHOOR KATE, PATHOOR POST, KASARAGOD, KERALA STATE-671 121.

¶25

THE MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD ITS BRANCH OFFICE, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, LAKSHMIPURAM, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE-570 001.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. JWALAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2 SERVED)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JJUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.11.20119, PASSED IN MVC NO. 775/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, NANJANGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶29

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

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the M.V. Act arises from the judgment and award dated 13.11.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Nanjangud in MVC No.775/2018 .

¶32

The claimants-appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of I.M.V. Act to award just and proper compensation on account of the death of late Santhosh @ Mahadevaswamy who succumbed to the injuries in a road traffic accident on 2.5.2018. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,35,850/- with interest at the

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:26919 MFA No. 4336 of 2020

¶35

rate of 6% p.a. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants-appellants are before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and perused the trial court records.

¶37

Admittedly, the husband of the claimant-appellant No.3 and son and brother of the claimants-appellants No.1, 2 and 4 died in a road traffic accident on 2.5.2018, and as of the date of the accident, he was about 26 years old. The deceased was possessing the licence to drive heavy transport vehicle and also passenger bus which is evident from the driving licence produced at Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14.

¶38

The Apex Court in the case of Sushila and others -vs- Ram Swaroop and others, 2023 ACJ 2030, ruled that, in a case where the deceased was a driver and possessing licence to drive the heavy vehicle, the income has to be assessed at Rs.20,000/- per month for the accident which occurred in the year 2012.

¶39

P.W.2 the employer of the deceased and the owner of the bus categorically stated the deceased was paid a sum of Rs.18,000/towards wages.

¶40

The accident is of the year 2018, and therefore it would be appropriate to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- per month, and after adding 40% towards future prospects, it comes to Rs.25,200/- and after deducting 1/3^rd towards his personal expenses, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.16,800/- and by adopting the

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:26919 MFA No. 4336 of 2020

¶42

multiplier of '17', the compensation towards loss of dependency comes to Rs. 34,27,200/- (16,800 x 12 x 17).

¶43

The claimants-appellants No.1 to 3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, and in all they are entitled for a total sum of Rs.35,77,200/- as opposed to Rs.4,35,850/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶44

On 02.05.204 when the deceased was proceeding on his scooter from Gundlupet to Nanjangud , at that time, the driver of the Car who was proceeding from Nanjangud to Gundlupet drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and collided against the scooter of the claimant, as a result of which the deceased Santhosh fell down and succumbed to the accidental injuries on the spot.

¶45

The Police after investigation laid the charge sheet against the driver of the offending car. Perusal of Exs.P.3 and P.4 indicated that, the accident occurred on the left side of the road of which the deceased was proceeding from Gundlupet to Nanjangud.

¶46

The Insurance company has also not taken any specific defence with regard to attributing contributory negligence against the deceased. However, the Tribunal contrary to the evidence and record, on probability has come to a conclusion that the deceased has committed negligence to the tune of 75% which is without any basis and substance. Further no evidence was adduced by the insurance company to attribute contributory negligence against the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal attributing 75% contributory negligence against the deceased is hereby set aside.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:26919 MFA No. 4336 of 2020

¶49

The claimants-appellants Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.31,41,350/- at 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of actual realization.

¶50

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Tribunal is modified. The respondent No.3 Insurance Company before the Tribunal is fastened with a liability to pay entire compensation amount with accrued interest to the claimants No.1 to 3. The Insurer to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶51

14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶52

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶53

Shambulingaswamy @ Shambulingappa v. Ananthakrishnan R Nayar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shambulingaswamy @ Shambulingappa v. Ananthakrishnan R Nayar

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 Shalini Vs State of Karnataka by Secretary

Sri Narayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the Labour Commissioner

Sri. Rajendra H R Vs Divisional Controller

Sri Kare Rangappa Vs the Inspector of Excise

Chitradurga Zilla Ambedkar Seva Sangha(Regd) Vs the State of Karnataka