Partly allowed

Smt. Gangamma v. Smt. Geetha

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024MFA/5392/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MFA challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award on compensation for death in a road accident. Court re-assessed deceased's notional income and reduced the percentage deduction for living expenses, enhancing the awarded compensation from Rs.3.4 lakhs to Rs.5.1 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.1,70,000 with interest at 6% p.a. awarded to the appellant and directed to be deposited by Respondent No.7.

Smt. Gangamma Vs Smt. Geetha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44571-DB MFA No.5392/2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5392/2019 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY I.R. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.14, IBBIDU VILLAGE AND POST MADIHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶10

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SMT. P.V. KALPANA, ADV.,)

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. GEETHA D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY I.R. W/O THARESH I.T. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.14, IBBIDU VILLAGE AND POST MADIHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK HASAN DISTRICT.

¶15

SMT. SUCHITRA D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY I.R.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44571-DB MFA No.5392/2019

¶17

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT RAYAPURA VILLAGE SALGOMA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶18

SMT. SUJATHA D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY I.R. W/O KUMARA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT SEEGE VILLAGE RAYAPURA SALGOMA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶19

JEEVAN I.N. W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY I.R. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.14, IBBIDU VILLAGE AND POST MADIHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶20

SMT. SUREKHA D/O NARAYANASWAMY I.R. W/O RUDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT PALYA VILLAGE, ALUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶21

SMT. GAYATHRI D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY I.R. W/O RAMACHANDRA H.R. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT HIREKADLUR VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶22

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD EAST WING, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR CENTENARY BUILDING,

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:44571-DB MFA No.5392/2019

¶25

NEXT TO MAYO HALL M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶26

MR. RAMESH S/O RAMAPPA, MAJOR R/AT GARUR VILLAGE & POST KOTE BEEDHI, KATTAYA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R7 V/O/DTD:27.06.2024 NOTICE TO R1 TO R6 AND R8 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶29

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23^RD FEBRUARY 2019, PASSED BY IN MVC NO.3501/2018 BY THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT BANGALORE, AND ENHANCE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED IN THE CLAIM PETITION OR AWARD SUCH SUM THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT FEELS JUST AND REASONABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH INTEREST AND COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:44571-DB MFA No.5392/2019

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

( PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶36

Challenging the judgment and award in MVC

¶37

No.3501/2018 passed by the XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge and the MACT, Bengaluru, claimants have filed this appeal.

¶38

The appellant was the claimant No.1, respondent Nos.1 to 6 were claimant Nos.2 to 7 and respondent Nos.7 and 8 in this appeal were respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶39

The legal heirs of deceased Sri.Narayanaswamy filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking compensation for his death in a road accident that occurred on 30.12.2017 at 9.35 p.m. It was contended that the deceased was walking on the left side of the road. At that time, the rider of the Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing Chassis No.MD2A13EY6HCD03342 came in wrong direction of the road and dashed the deceased resultantly deceased fell down,

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44571-DB MFA No.5392/2019

¶41

sustained grievous head injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital at Hassan. Later, he succumbed to the injuries on 31.12.2017 at about 12.30 a.m. The jurisdictional police registered the case against the rider of the offending two wheeler and filed charge sheet. It was further contended that deceased was aged about 65 years, was earning Rs.20,000/p.m. from agricultural work and coconut business, used to contribute the entire earnings to claimants and due to his untimely death, they have lost the loved one and financial dependency. Hence, claimants prayed for award of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation.

¶42

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement denying age, income and avocation of deceased. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of deceased. Respondent No.2 - owner of the vehicle contended that the rider of the motorcycle was having valid and effective driving license and the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with respondent No.1. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44571-DB MFA No.5392/2019

¶44

The Tribunal recorded the evidence. Claimant No.1

¶45

got examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. The respondents examined RW-1 but did not produce any documentary evidence. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, partly allowed the claim petition. Tribunal notionally assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- p.m., applied '5' multiplier, awarded Rs.2,70,000/under the head of loss of dependency and in total, awarded compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. The Tribunal held that the claimant No.1 alone is dependant of the deceased and other claimants are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of love and affection. Being aggrieved, claimant No.1 is in appeal seeking higher compensation.

¶46

Smt.P.V.Kalpana, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal committed grave error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- p.m. as he was earning more than Rs.20,000/- p.m. from agricultural work and coconut business. It is further submitted that deducting 50% of the assessed income of the deceased under the head of personal and living expenses of the deceased is contrary to the

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:44571-DB MFA No.5392/2019

¶49

evidence on record as claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased. Hence, appropriate deduction should be 1/3^rd . She seeks to allow the appeal.

¶50

Per contra, Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel for respondent No.7 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the claimants have not produced the legally acceptable evidence to prove the income of the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.9,000/- p.m. which does not call for any modification. It is submitted that the Tribunal has considered claimant No.1 as the sole dependent, hence, rightly deducted 50% of the income towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶51

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and examining the materials on record, the point that arises for determination is “ Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference”?

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:44571-DB MFA No.5392/2019

¶53

ANALYSIS

¶54

It is not in dispute that in a road traffic accident that occurred on 30.12.2017 Sri.Narayanaswamy I.R. sustained

¶55

fatal injuries and succumbed to those injuries. As per Ex.P9 - copy of Aadhar card of the deceased, he was aged about 66 years. Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any legally acceptable evidence in proof of actual income of the deceased. As per the claim petition deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m from agricultural work and coconut business. However, no evidence to substantiate the said plea was produced before the Tribunal. Hence, considering the notional income chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, we re-assess the income notionally at Rs.11,000/p.m. which would meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of the assessed income of the deceased towards the personal and living expenses. As the deceased was married and survived by dependant wife, appropriate deduction would be 1/3^rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi

¶56

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:44571-DB MFA No.5392/2019

¶57

Transport Corporation¹ . The compensation under the head of

¶58

loss of dependency is reassessed as under:

¶59

Rs.11,000 X 12 X 5 X 2/3 = Rs.4,40,000/-.

¶60

Compensation awarded on other heads need to be

¶61

maintained.

¶62

Hence, the compensation is re-determined as

¶63

under:

¶64

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount
1	Loss of dependency	Rs.4,40,000
2	Loss of consortium	Rs.40,000
3	Loss of love and affection	Rs.15,000
4	Transportation of dead body	Rs.15,000
	and funeral expenses
	Total	Rs.5,10,000
	Awarded by Tribunal	Rs.3,40,000
E	nhanced compensation	Rs.1,70,000

¶65

The enhanced compensation amount carries interest at

¶66

6% p.a.

¶67

For the aforementioned reasons, we pass the

¶68

following:

¶69

1 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶70

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:44571-DB MFA No.5392/2019

¶71

ORDER

¶72

i. The appeal is partly allowed.

¶73

ii. The appellant/claimant is awarded enhanced

¶74

compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization.

¶75

iii. Respondent No.7 shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of the receipt of this judgment.

¶76

iv. The enhanced compensation amount along with interest shall be released in favour of the appellant (claimant No.1).

¶77

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶78

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶79

RV/BSR

¶80

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Smt. Gangamma v. Smt. Geetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gangamma v. Smt. Geetha

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

Mr. Shaik Sadiq Ali Vs State by K.G. Halli Ps

The Divisional Controller Vs Ramesh

Smt Dilmaya Limbo Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Mr.Prabhakaran M

Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Vs Smt.Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ranjitha M K