Partly allowed

Dhanalakshmi v. K K Murthy

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2024MFA/4895/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident death claim appeal by parents of a deceased delivery executive seeking enhancement of compensation. Court recomputed income with 40% future prospects per Pranay Sethi and awarded filial consortium per Magma, enhancing compensation to Rs.27,01,352 with interest at 6% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.22,98,000 to Rs.27,01,352 with interest at 6% p.a.; Insurance Company directed to deposit within six weeks.

Dhanalakshmi Vs K K Murthy — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39848 MFA No. 4895 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4895 OF 2018 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DHANALAKSHMI

¶9

W/O ANANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶10

ANANTHAPPA S/O ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶11

ARUN KUMAR S/O ANNANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.15,1ST MAIN ROAD OPP:GOVERNMENT SCHOOL S.G.PALYA, DHARMARAM COLLEGE POST BENGALURU-560 029.

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. KAILAS SHANKAR P S.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

K K MURTHY S/O KALASAYYA R/AT NO.113,2ND MAIN 2ND CROSS,JANANBHARATHI 2ND STAGE,(OPP KARNATAKA BANK ATM) BENGALURU-560 056.

¶17

THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.121,THE ESTATE 9TH FLOOR,DICKENSON ROAD M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39848 MFA No. 4895 of 2018

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.H.M. BHANU, ADVCOATE FOR R1: SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.454/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MACT, MEMBER, BENGALURU (SCCH-1), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

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 08.11.2017 passed by the MACT (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.454/2017.

¶26

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 31.12.2016 at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased Jayananda was proceeding in the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-EJ-446 by riding the same

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39848 MFA No. 4895 of 2018

¶28

along with pillion rider (Rajendra) on extreme left side of Tumakur-Tiptur NH-206 Road and when they reached near Konankavalu Forest Curve, Near Jakkanahalli Gate, Kibbanahalli Hobli, Tumkur, at that time, the driver of the Altro Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-MF-7304 came from opposite direction i.e. from Tiptur side in a rash and negligent manner without observing any of the traffic rules and regulations and came to the extreme left and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶29

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

¶30

Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶31

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39848 MFA No. 4895 of 2018

¶33

the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove the case, examined claimant No.2 as PW-1, and other witnesses as PW-3 and PW-4, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 and Ex.P25 to Ex.P29. On behalf of respondents, neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. The Claims 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.22,98,000/- 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.

¶34

The learned counsel for the claimants raised the following contentions:

¶35

i) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was approximately aged about 23 years at the time of the

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39848 MFA No. 4895 of 2018

¶37

accident and had a monthly income of Rs.20,000/- as a Delivery Executive and produced Ex.P29 payment details.

¶38

The Tribunal has considered the payment details for the period from 04.05.2016 to 03.01.2017 amounting to Rs.1,19,972.94. However, the assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.

¶39

ii) Secondly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL

¶40

INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ

¶41

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

¶42

v) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side. Hence, sought to allow the appeal.

¶43

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

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39848 MFA No. 4895 of 2018

¶45

i) Firstly, although the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, the payment slip produced by the claimants for each month varies. Therefore, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased.

¶46

ii) Secondly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶47

iii) 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 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. Hence, sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶48

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

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39848 MFA No. 4895 of 2018

¶50

It is not in dispute that Jayananda died in the road traffic accident occurred on 31.12.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶51

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he has prouced Ex.P29 – paymentslip. The Tribunal has considered the payment received for the period from 04.05.2016 to 03.01.2017, amounting to Rs.1,19,972.94. The average comes to Rs.17,138/-. To the aforesaid income, 40% 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. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], . Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.23,993/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount, i.e., Rs.11,996/- has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of the accident and multiplier

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39848 MFA No. 4895 of 2018

¶53

applicable to his age group is ‘18’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.25,91,352/-

¶54

(Rs.11,9971218) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶55

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’.

¶56

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.1 and 2, parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’.

¶57

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

¶58

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	25,91,352
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:39848 MFA No. 4895 of 2018

¶61

Loss of Filial consortium	80,000
Total	27,01,352

¶62

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶65

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

¶66

(iii) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.27,01,352/- as against Rs.22,98,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶67

(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 at 6% per annum.

¶68

(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

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:39848 MFA No. 4895 of 2018

¶71

a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶72

(vi) The apportionment, deposit and release of

¶73

amount shall be made in accordance with the terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶74

(vii) In view of the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period of 112 days in filing the appeal.

¶75

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶76

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Dhanalakshmi v. K K Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanalakshmi v. K K Murthy

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 M v Venkataramegowda Vs Sri K P Umar

Sri Surendra H P Vs Sri Chikkanna

Mohan Naik @ Mohan Naik Chowan Vs M/S. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

The Divisional Controller Vs Lakshman Shetty @ B Lakshminnababu Shetty @ Laxmana B

Rangaswamy G.R Vs M.N. Boregowda

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri. Rajanna S