Partly allowed

Sri. T Mahadeva v. the Manager

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2024MFA/462/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor First Appeal filed by claimant seeking enhancement of compensation for death caused by motor accident. The Court modified the Tribunal's award by adding future prospects, escalating loss of consortium and funeral expenses as per Pranay Sethi guidelines, and increasing funeral expenses. Enhanced compensation granted.

What did the court decide?

Claim allowed in part; compensation enhanced from Rs.4,78,300/- to Rs.6,86,600/-.

Sri. T Mahadeva Vs the Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:1693 MFA No. 462 of 2023

¶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.462 OF 2023 (MV-D)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI T.MAHADEVA S/O.LATE THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.48/A, 8^TH CROSS 2^ND MAIN ROAD NANJAMBA AGRAHARA CHAMARAJAPET BENGALURU-560 018

¶7

… APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI K.V.NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. S-5, 3^RD FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS OPP. TO INFANTRY WEDDING HALL INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

¶11

POLICY ISSUED BY OFFICE AT D.NO.122/2B, B.R.TOWERS OPP. CSI CHURCH DENKANIKATTIA MAIN ROAD HOSUR-635 109

¶12

MR.CHANDRAKUMAR S/O.THIMMARAYAPPA MAJOR R/AT NO.86/7 PARVATHINAGAR BILLAPURA VILLAGE ATTIBELE POST, ANEKAL TALUK

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:1693 MFA No. 462 of 2023

¶15

BENGALURU-562 106

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O/DTD.20.01.2023)

¶18

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.09.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.7518/2016 BY III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging

¶22

the judgment and award dated 17.09.2019 passed in MVC.No.7518/2016 by III Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶23

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

¶24

their status before the Tribunal.

¶25

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶26

On 20.03.2016, at about 1.30 p.m., when

¶27

Smt.Madamma was sitting next to Puttaraju's shop and

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:1693 MFA No. 462 of 2023

¶30

was selling groundnuts at Kolagondanahalli Shankranthi Fair, at that time, the driver of Tata Motors SFC 407 bearing registration No.KA-05-B-6103 suddenly took his vehicle in a reverse direction without any indication and came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Smt.Madamma, due to the impact, Smt.Madamma sustained grievous injuries. She was shifted to Government Hospital, Kanakapura, wherein she was provided first aid treatment and during the course of treatment on 01.04.2016, she succumbed to the injuries. It is stated that the claimant spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment, funeral and obsequies ceremonies.

¶31

3.1 It is stated that the claimant was hale and healthy prior to the occurrence of accident. She was aged 58 years, working as a groundnut seller and was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. The claimant is none other than the son of the deceased, who is the sole legal representative of the deceased. It is claimed that the claimant was dependent on the deceased, who was the sole bread earner of the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:1693 MFA No. 462 of 2023

¶34

family. Hence, he filed a claim petition seeking

¶35

compensation.

¶36

3.2 On service of notice, respondent No.1 appeared

¶37

through counsel and filed its statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, age, involvement of the vehicle and negligence attributed against the driver of the offending vehicle. However, respondent No.1 admitted the issuance of policy and the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and the offending vehicle had no valid permit and FC. Hence, respondent No.2 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and as such, respondent No.1 is not liable to indemnify respondent No.2, whereas respondent No.1 denied the involvement of the vehicle and stated that negligence was on behalf of the deceased,

¶38

who was sitting on the road without using footpath. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:1693 MFA No. 462 of 2023

¶41

3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed

¶42

the relevant issues for consideration.

¶43

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P12. On the other hand, respondent No.1 examined witnesses as RWs.1 to 4 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 to R6.

¶44

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 compensation of Rs.4,78,300/- with interest @ 8% p.a. to the claimant and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant and respondent No.1 is at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle.

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:1693 MFA No. 462 of 2023

¶48

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 claimant is the only son of the deceased. 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.

¶49

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.1Insurance 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.

¶50

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and learned counsel for respondentInsurance Company and perused the impugned judgment and award, the occurrence of accident and the

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:1693 MFA No. 462 of 2023

¶53

involvement of vehicle are not in dispute. To establish the same, the claimant has produced Exs.P1 to P7, the Police record and Exs.P8 to P12, the medical records. The Police records at Exs.P1 to P7 clearly disclose filing of FIR and chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, involvement of the vehicle and negligence attributed against the driver of the offending vehicle and the death having occurred is apparently established.

¶54

Now coming to the age, avocation and income of the deceased as on the date of occurrence of accident, the

¶55

tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, as no proof of income was produced. However, the Legal Service Authority chart prescribes the notional income of Rs.9,500/- per month for the accident of the year 2016 and the same is taken in the present case. In view of the age of the deceased was 56 years as on the date of occurrence of accident, 10% will have to be added towards future prospects, which has not been taken by the tribunal. The tribunal rightly deducted

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:1693 MFA No. 462 of 2023

¶57

50% towards personal and living expenses, which does not call for interference and the same is retained. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.5,64,300/- (Rs.9,500/- + 10% = Rs.10,450/- - 50% = Rs.5,225/- x 12 x 9) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.3,78,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶58

The tribunal awarded Rs.45,300/- towards medical expenses, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶59

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%).

¶60

The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies

¶61

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:1693 MFA No. 462 of 2023

¶62

ceremony expenses. I am in agreement with learned counsel for appellant-claimant that this amount is on the lower side. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- under this head. As per the aforesaid decision, 10% escalation for one block period on the same

¶63

to be awarded under this head, which would come to

¶64

Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 10%).

¶65

In view of the above, the claimant would be

¶66

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,86,600/- as

¶67

against Rs.4,78,300/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶68

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	5,64,300-00
Loss of consortium	44,000-00
Transportation of dead body,	33,000-00
funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses
Medical expenses	45,300-00
TOTAL	6,86,600-00

¶69

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶72

ii) The judgment and award dated 17.09.2019 passed in MVC.No.7518/2016 by III Additional

¶73

10 -

¶74

NC: 2024:KHC:1693 MFA No. 462 of 2023

¶75

Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, is modified;

¶76

iii) The claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.6,86,600/- as against Rs.4,78,300/-;

¶77

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;

¶78

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

¶79

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

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

¶82

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

Sri. T Mahadeva v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. T Mahadeva v. the Manager

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.

Smt Lakshmi Vs Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd.

Usha Vs Anand K M

Smt Rama Vs Nagaraja M