Partly allowed

Smt. Kamale Bai v. Rudresha a T

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024MFA/4529/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part by enhancing the compensation awarded by the MACT. The Court applied the Pranay Sethi guidelines to fix notional income with a 10% future prospects addition, applied the correct multiplier and dependency fraction, and granted standard amounts for funeral expenses, loss of estate, and consortium as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. The total compensation

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 13,03,750/- awarded to claimants, to be deposited by respondent within six weeks with 6% interest.

Smt. Kamale Bai Vs Rudresha a T — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38597 MFA No. 4529 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4529 OF 2020 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. KAMALE BAI W/O GANGA NAIK AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶8

HOUSE WIFE

¶9

G KUMAR NAIK S/O LATE GANGA NAIK AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS LABOUR WORK

¶10

KUM RAKSHITHA G D/O LATE GANGA NAIK AGED 17 YEARS STUDENT,

¶11

MINOR REPT. BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

HASLI BAI W/O LATE HEMLA NAIK, AGED 72 YEARS, OCC. NO WORK

¶14

ALL ARE R/O YALAKAPPANAHATTI VILLAGE & POST BOKIKERE, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577527

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SURESH R.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

RUDRESHA A T S/O THIPPESWAMY A

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38597 MFA No. 4529 of 2020

¶20

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS DRIVER, CHITRADURGA DEPOT CHITRADURGA TOWN CHITRADURGA DIST-577501.

¶21

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC DAVANAGERE DIVISION P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE 577002.

¶22

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR INTERNAL SECURITY FUND KSRTC SARIGE BHAVANA OLD KGID BUILDING K H ROAD,BENGALURU-560027.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT.NIRMALA, ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 & R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 07.09.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1145/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT, HOSADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 07.09.2019 passed by the MACT, Hosadurga in MVC No.1145/2018.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38597 MFA No. 4529 of 2020

¶30

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 25.06.2018 at about 08.15 p.m., when the deceased Ganga Naik was walking near petrol bunk at 2^nd Yalakappanahatty village after crossing the road, the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-17-F1729 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶31

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

¶32

Upon service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38597 MFA No. 4529 of 2020

¶34

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,77,100/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶35

The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶36

a) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was aged about 58 years at the time of the accident and had a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- by working as Coolie. However, the assessment of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.

¶37

b) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38597 MFA No. 4529 of 2020

¶39

CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017

¶40

SC 5157], in cases, where the deceased was selfemployed or received a fixed salary, an addition of 10% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ is warranted when the deceased was between the age group of 50-60 years. The said principle shall be applied to the present case.

¶41

c) Thirdly, there are four dependents depending upon the income of the deceased. The Tribunal instead of deducting 1/4^th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, has deducted 1/3^rd .

¶42

d) Fourthly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ

¶43

2782] , each of the claimants is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶44

e) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side.

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38597 MFA No. 4529 of 2020

¶46

With the above contentions, the learned counsel

¶47

sought to allow the appeal.

¶48

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Corporation has raised the following counter-contentions: a) Firstly, although the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, they have failed to substantiate their claim with supporting documents. Consequently, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

¶49

b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established

¶50

the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’.

¶51

c) Thirdly, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased and they are the only dependents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses.

¶52

d) Fourthly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38597 MFA No. 4529 of 2020

¶54

deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶55

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶56

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶57

It is not in dispute that Ganga Naik died in the road traffic accident occurred on 25.06.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶58

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but failed to produce supporting documents to substantiate their claim. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2018, the notional income of the deceased shall be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 10% has to

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38597 MFA No. 4529 of 2020

¶60

be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court

¶61

in ‘PRANAY SETHI’ (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.13,750/-. The claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased and they are depending upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, it is appropriate to

¶62

deduct 1/4^th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 58 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘9’. Thus, the claimants are

¶63

entitled to compensation of Rs.11,13,750/- (Rs.13,750129*3/4) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶64

In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’. Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

¶65

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:38597 MFA No. 4529 of 2020

¶66

12. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

¶67

the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.2 and 3, children of the deceased are entitled

¶68

for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’ and claimant No.4, mother of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’.

¶69

13. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

¶70

compensation:

¶71

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	11,13,750
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of spousal consortium	40,000
Loss of Parental consortium	80,000
Loss of Filial consortium	40,000
Total	13,03,750

¶72

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:38597 MFA No. 4529 of 2020

¶73

14. In the result, the following order is passed:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶76

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶77

c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.13,03,750/- as against Rs.6,77,100/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶78

d) The Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶79

e) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount shall be made in accordance with the terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶80

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶81

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

¶82

Smt. Kamale Bai v. Rudresha a T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kamale Bai v. Rudresha a T

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 Nagamani Vs Mr D Sreenivasalu Reddy

The Manager Vs Smt Chikkamma

Sri. K v Ramakrishna Vs Sri. Vinaya Kumar M B

Smt. Harshitha S Vs Sri. Indresh B

Sri Syed Anees Vs Sri Mohammed Yusuf

H Mahesh Vs Anand