Partly allowed

Smt Saroja v. Sri Ravikumar

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2024MFA/6585/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two connected appeals sought enhancement of compensation for deaths in a car-tipper lorry collision. The High Court recomputed dependency with one-third deduction, added consortium, funeral and legal expenses, and enhanced compensation to Rs.9,36,712/- and Rs.18,14,057/- respectively at 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.6,66,640 to Rs.9,36,712 (MFA 6585/2019) and from Rs.14,94,057 to Rs.18,14,057 (MFA 6583/2019), with 6% p.a. interest excluding condoned delay; insurer to deposit within e

Smt Saroja Vs Sri Ravikumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11904 MFA No. 6585 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6583 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6585 OF 2019(MV-D)

¶7

C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6583 OF 2019(MV-D)

¶9

IN MFA.NO.6585/2019

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. SAROJA, W/O LATE VEERAMANI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶12

SRI. RAGHURAMAN.V., S/O LATE VEERAMANI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.21/2, ANNANAGAR, HOSUR, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU-635 109.

¶15

(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA. K., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

SRI. RAVIKUMAR, S/O RAGHAVAPPA, R/O MIG-82, THALI ROAD, HOUSING BOARD, GANDHINAGAR, HOSUR, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT-635 109.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:11904 MFA No. 6585 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6583 of 2019

¶21

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.620, A-1, 12TH MAIN, 35TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY VIDE ORDER DATED 11.07.2023 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH; SRI. RAVI SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.07.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.6774/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

IN MFA.NO.6583/2019

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SMT. KAVERI, W/O LATE BALASUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶28

SRI. B. NARAYANAN, S/O LATE BALASUBRAMANYAM M.S., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶29

SMT. BHUVAN, D/O LATE BALASUBRAMANYAM M.S., W/O RAJAGOPAL,

¶30

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶31

SRI. GANESH, S/O LATE BALASUBRAMANYAM M.S., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶32

- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11904 MFA No. 6585 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6583 of 2019

¶33

ALL ARE R/AT NO.21, OLD TEMPLE, LAND HUDCO, NEAR UZAHVAN, SANDHAI, HOSUR, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU-635109.

¶34

…APPELLANTS

¶35

(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA. K., ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

SRI. RAVIKUMAR, S/O RAGHAVAPPA, R/O MIG-82, THALI ROAD, HOUSING BOARD, GANDHINAGAR, HOSUR, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT-635 109.

¶38

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.620, A-1, 12TH MAIN, 35TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY VIDE ORDER DATED 09.08.2023 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH; SRI. RAVI SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶41

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.07.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.6771/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶42

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11904 MFA No. 6585 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6583 of 2019

¶43

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.6774 & 6771/2016 dated 28.07.2018 on the file of the X Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT at Bengaluru, whereby the claimants are before this Court. The claimants have preferred MFA.Nos.6585/2019 and 6583/2019 respectively for enhancement of the compensation. As the Court below had passed common order, this Court is also disposing of the two appeals by way of common order.

¶46

MFA NO.6585/2018 arising out of MVC NO.6774/2016

¶47

The case of the claimant is that on 04.05.2016

¶48

both the deceased were proceeding from Bangalore towards Hosur in a car. The car was driven by another person, when they reached near Neraluru Gate, at that time the driver of the tipper lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, the car driver lost the control and

¶49

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11904 MFA No. 6585 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6583 of 2019

¶50

dashed against the lorry from behind. Due to the said impact the car was completely damaged and the inmates sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to the hospital. In the hospital, the deceased succumbed for the injuries. The Court below had held that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tipper lorry and held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

¶51

In this case, the claim petition is filed by the wife and son. The amount claimed is Rs.15,00,000/-. According to the claimants, the deceased was working and earning an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month. In that regard, they have marked Ex.P.31 as they have not examined anyone in support of the same and bank pass book has not been placed. Hence, the Court below had taken the income as Rs.10,000/- per month and the Court below has granted 10% future prospects and by deducting 50% as wife and son are the claimants and son has

¶52

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11904 MFA No. 6585 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6583 of 2019

¶53

attained majority and by applying the relevant multiplier had granted the compensation as per the table given below:

¶54

	Heads		C	ompensation Awarded
1.	Loss of dependency		Rs.	5,94,000/-
2.	Loss of Consortium	:	Rs.	40,000/-
3.	Loss of estate	:	Rs.	15,000/-
4.	Funeral and transportation expenses	:	Rs.	15,000/-
5.	Medical expenses	:	Rs.	2,640/-
	Total	:	Rs.	6,66,640/-

¶55

Aggrieved thereby the claimants are before this

¶56

Court. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Court below ought to have taken Rs.30,000/- per month as income, when they have filed Ex.P.31. It is submitted that both the wife and son are dependants, the Court below ought to have deducted 1/3^rd , instead of that the Court below had deducted 50% and granted the compensation. It is further submitted that

¶57

even under the conventional heads also the amounts that

¶58

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:11904 MFA No. 6585 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6583 of 2019

¶59

are granted by the Court below are not just and reasonable.

¶60

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that though Ex.P.31 was marked stating that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, he has not adduced any of the evidence in support of the same and no one was examined. The Court below had rightly taken Rs.10,000/- per month as income. It is submitted that no grounds are made out for enhancement of compensation.

¶61

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material placed on record. Though, it is the case of claimant that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that except Ex.P.31 he has not filed any other supporting evidence. The Court below had rightly taken Rs.10,000/- per month as income. As the deceased was 60 years old, future prospects at 10% i.e., Rs.1,000/- it comes to Rs.11,000/-. As the wife is the

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:11904 MFA No. 6585 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6583 of 2019

¶63

dependant, the Court below ought to have taken 1/3^rd , but the Court below had deducted 50%, this Court is inclined to deduct 1/3^rd is Rs.3,666/-, the same is deducted. His contribution to the family would be (7334X12X9)= Rs.7,92,072/- . For both the wife and to the son towards consortium (48000X2) Rs.96,000/-, towards funeral expenses Rs.36,000/-. The Court below had granted Rs.2,640/- towards medical expenses and no interference is called for.

¶64

Further in the light of the law laid down by the

¶65

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER¹ , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards ' legal expenses' .

¶66

The claimant is therefore, entitled to the

¶67

compensation under the following heads:

¶68

	Heads	Compensation Awarded
1.	Loss of future income	Rs. 7,92,072/-

¶69

1 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶70

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:11904 MFA No. 6585 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6583 of 2019

¶71

2.	Towards consortium	:	Rs.	96,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	:	Rs.	36,000/-
4.	Medical expenses	:	Rs.	2,640/-
5.	Legal expenses	:	Rs.	10,000/-
	Total	:	Rs.	9,36,712/-

¶72

MFA.No.6583/2019 arising out of MVC.No.6771/2016

¶73

In this case, the age of the claimant is 72 years. According to the claimants, the deceased was working and earning an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month. In that regard, they have filed the income tax returns for the year 2009. The accident had taken place in the year 2016. The Court below had taken the income at Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimants are wife and three major children, the Court below had deducted 50% and granted the compensation as per the table given below:

¶74

	Heads		C	ompensation Awarded
1.	Loss of dependency		Rs.	4,50,000/-
2.	Loss of Consortium	:	Rs.	40,000/-
3.	Loss of estate	:	Rs.	15,000/-

¶75

10 -

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:11904 MFA No. 6585 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6583 of 2019

¶77

4.	Funeral and transportation	:	Rs.	15,000/-
	expenses
5.	Medical expenses	:	Rs.	9,74,057/-
	Total	:	Rs.	14,94,057/-

¶78

Aggrieved thereby the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Court below had failed to grant the reasonable compensation. It is the case of the claimant that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month and also placed the income tax returns. The Court below ought not to have taken Rs.15,000/- as income. It is submitted that when there are 4 claimants, the Court below ought not to have deducted 50%. It is further submitted that the compensation that is awarded by the Court below are not just and reasonable.

¶79

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Court below has considered all these aspects and had rightly taken the income at Rs.15,000/-

¶80

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:11904 MFA No. 6585 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6583 of 2019

¶81

and rightly granted the compensation and no grounds are made out for enhancement of compensation.

¶82

It is the submission of learned counsel for the claimant that the income would have been taken at Rs.30,000/-. When the accident is of the year 2016 and they are relying on the income tax returns for the year 2009, the Court below had taken Rs.15,000/- per month as income and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. As the deceased is 72 years old, he is not entitled for any future prospects. Considering that the wife is one of the claimant, this Court is inclined to deduct 1/3^rd i.e., 5,000/-. His contribution to the family would be (10,000X12X5)= Rs.6,00,000/- . For both the wife and children towards consortium Rs.1,92,000/- , towards funeral expenses Rs.36,000/- . The Court below had granted Rs.9,76,057/- towards medical expenses and no interference is called for.

¶83

Further in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M.

¶84

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:11904 MFA No. 6585 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6583 of 2019

¶85

MALATHI AND ANOTHER² , the claimant is entitled for an

¶86

amount of Rs.10,000/- towards ' legal expenses' .

¶87

The claimant is therefore, entitled to the

¶88

compensation under the following heads:

¶89

	Heads		C	ompensation Awarded
1.	Loss of future income		Rs.	6,00,000/-
2.	Towards consortium	:	Rs.	1,92,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	:	Rs.	36,000/-
4.	Medical expenses	:	Rs.	9,76,057/-
5.	Legal expenses	:	Rs.	10,000/-
	Total	:	Rs.	18,14,057/-

¶90

Accordingly, the MFA.No.6585/2019 is allowed-in-part , by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.6,66,640/- to an amount of Rs.9,36,712/- setting aside the award passed in M.V.C.No.6774/2016 dated 28.07.2018 and

¶91

MFA.No.6583/2019 is allowed-in-part , by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.14,94,057/- to 2 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶92

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:11904 MFA No. 6585 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6583 of 2019

¶93

Rs.18,14,057/- setting aside the award passed in M.V.C.No.6771/2016 dated 28.07.2018.

¶94

i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶95

ii) In MFA.No.6585 and 6583/2019, this Court by common order dated 24.11.2023 has condoned the delay of 267 and 275 days respectively on the condition that they are not entitled for the interest for the delay period. In view of the same, the appellants are not entitled for interest for the period of 267 and 275 days respectively.

¶96

iii) The respondent - insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the

¶97

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:11904 MFA No. 6585 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6583 of 2019

¶98

claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire

¶99

amount without furnishing any security.

¶100

iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶101

v) Learned counsel Sri. Ravi S. Samprathi is permitted to file Vakalath on behalf of respondent No.2 within two weeks.

¶102

vi) No costs.

¶103

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶104

Sd/Judge

¶105

¶106

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Smt Saroja v. Sri Ravikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Saroja v. Sri Ravikumar

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

J Gopinath Vs Kousalya Gopinath

Smt Vaishnavi M Vs Srikanth R

Sri. Nasappa Vs Smt. Varalakshmi

Rakshith H S Vs Nafeej Ahamad

Sri Jagadeesha Vs Nagalakshmi K L

The Manager Vs Smt. Lakshmamma