Partly allowed

Smt. Ravanamma v. Mrs. Parveen Taj

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2024MFA/4859/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhancement of motor accident death compensation for a pillion rider killed by a rashly driven Mahindra Bolero. The High Court recomputed dependency with 25% future prospects and a 14 multiplier, added consortium heads, enhanced compensation to Rs.14,54,872 with interest at 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation to Rs.14,54,872 with interest @ 6% p.a.; insurer directed to deposit within six weeks.

Smt. Ravanamma Vs Mrs. Parveen Taj — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31984 MFA No. 4859 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4859 OF 2019 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. RAVANAMMA W/O LATE M.SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶8

RESIDING AT BHOVI COLONY, SWEEPER COLONY, SRINIVASPURA TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT

¶9

SRI. JAGADISH

¶10

S/O LATE M.SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

RESIDING AT BHOVI COLONY, SWEEPER COLONY, SRINIVASPURA TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT

¶13

SRI. JYOTHEESHWARA S/O LATE M.SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶14

RESIDING AT BHOVI COLONY, SWEEPER COLONY, SRINIVASPURA TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT

¶15

SRI. NIRMAL PRAKASH S/O LATE M.SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31984 MFA No. 4859 of 2019

¶17

RESIDING AT BHOVI COLONY, SWEEPER COLONY, SRINIVASPURA TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY MS.G.SUSHMITHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N.,ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

MRS. PARVEEN TAJ W/O SHEIK ZIKRIYA, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NEAR SANDAL BANDA, MUJAWAR MOHALLA, MULBAGAL TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT-563131

¶22

MR. SYED ALTAF S/O SYED SARDAR, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.2212-1, PHOOLSHA MOHALLA, KOLAR TOWN AND DISTRICT-563101

¶23

M/S IFFCO TOKIYO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.41, CRISTU COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, LAVELLE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 BY ITS MANAGER

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.MURALIDHAR NEGAVOR, ADVOCATE FOR R3: NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED VIDE COURT ORDER DT.15.11.2023)

¶26

MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED23.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31984 MFA No. 4859 of 2019

¶28

NO.7057/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-5), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

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 being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 23.03.2018 passed by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident

¶33

Claims Tribunal (SCCH-5), Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.7057/2016.

¶34

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 30.09.2016 at about 12.30 p.m., when the deceased Subramani was proceeding on TVS Moped bearing registration No.KA-07/U-1481 as a pillion rider on Mulabagal – Srinivasapura main road near Hogalagere cross, at that time, a Mahindra Bolero LGV bearing

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31984 MFA No. 4859 of 2019

¶36

registration No.KA-29/A-7899 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased.

¶37

As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶38

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

¶39

Upon service of notice, the respondent No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.1 and 2, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and were placed ex-parte.

¶40

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove the case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1, and another witness as PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was examined nor got exhibited documents. The Claims

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31984 MFA No. 4859 of 2019

¶42

Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.9,80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶43

The learned counsel for the claimants raised the following contentions:

¶44

i) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was approximately aged about 44 years at the time of the accident and had a monthly income of Rs.22,000/- as a Powra Karmika. However, the assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.

¶45

ii) Secondly, the claimants are entirely depending upon the income of the deceased. The Tribunal, just

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:31984 MFA No. 4859 of 2019

¶47

because claimant Nos. 2 to 4 are majors has held that they are not dependents and deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. The same is contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶48

With the above submissions, learned counsel for the appellant sought to allow the appeal.

¶49

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits as follows:

¶50

i) Firstly, although the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.22,000/- per month, as per the documents produced by them, the deceased was earning Rs.8,031/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

¶51

ii) Secondly, since the claimant Nos.2 to 4 are major sons of the deceased, they are not depending upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses.

¶52

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:31984 MFA No. 4859 of 2019

¶53

iii) Thirdly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘loss of consortium and loss of love and affection’ is on the higher side, contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ

¶54

2782] .

¶55

(iv) Fourthly, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶56

iv) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS –V- VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS DISPOSED

¶57

OF ON 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side.

¶58

With the above submissions, learned counsel for the Insurance Company sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:31984 MFA No. 4859 of 2019

¶61

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

¶62

It is not in dispute that Subramani died in the road traffic accident occurred on 30.09.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶63

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.22,000/- per month, but the documents produced in support of the same shows that the deceased was earning Rs.8,031/- per month. Hence, the monthly income is considered as Rs.8,031/-. To the aforesaid income, 25% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -vPRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157].

¶64

Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.10,038/-. The first claimant is the wife and claimant Nos. 2 to 4 are the major sons of the deceased. The specific contention of the claimants is that they are entirely depending upon the

¶65

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:31984 MFA No. 4859 of 2019

¶66

income of the deceased. PW1 in her statement has categorically stated that claimants are entirely depending upon the income of the deceased. Just because they are majors, they cannot be denied the compensation, when they have proved that they were depending upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, it is appropriate to deduct 1/4^th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount, i.e., Rs.7,529/has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 44 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘14’.

¶67

Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.12,64,872/- (Rs.7,5291214) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶68

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

¶69

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:31984 MFA No. 4859 of 2019

¶70

for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of

¶71

spousal consortium'.

¶72

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’

¶73

(supra), claimant Nos.2 to 4, children of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’.

¶74

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

¶75

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	12,64,872
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of spousal consortium	40,000
Loss of Parental consortium	1,20,000
Total	14,54,872

¶76

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶77

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:31984 MFA No. 4859 of 2019

¶78

ORDER

¶79

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶80

(ii) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶81

(iii) The claimants are entitled to a total

¶82

compensation of Rs.14,54,872/- as against Rs.9,80,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶83

(iv) Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘MS.JOYEETA BOSE’ (supra), the enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum.

¶84

(v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest 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.

¶85

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

¶86

NC: 2024:KHC:31984 MFA No. 4859 of 2019

¶87

12 -

¶88

(vii) In view of the order dated 15.11.2023 passed by this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period of 345 days in filing the appeal.

¶89

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶90

CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

Smt. Ravanamma v. Mrs. Parveen Taj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ravanamma v. Mrs. Parveen Taj

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

D G Nagaraj Vs Kumar

Shashikumar L S Vs R Muralikumar

The Manager Vs Sri Aswathappa

Smt. Nikhitha Vs Pruthvi S. Guptha

H Anand Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Thimmaiah Vs the Managing Director