Partly allowed

Mrs Ramani v. Abdul Khader

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2024MFA/6973/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhancement of motor-accident compensation for the death of a 51-year-old coolie hit by a motorcycle. The court enhanced compensation to Rs.12,99,000, adding future prospects, spousal and parental consortium and medical expenses, and fixed interest at 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.12,99,000 with interest at 6% p.a.; Insurance Company directed to deposit within six weeks; apportionment as per Tribunal award.

Mrs Ramani Vs Abdul Khader — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33708 MFA No. 6973 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6973 OF 2018 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS RAMANI

¶8

W/O LATE CHADRAYYA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶9

MR HARIPRASAD S/O LATE CHANDAYYA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶10

KUMARI NAILINI D/O LATE CHANDAYYA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS

¶11

MASTER JEEVAN

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

S/O LATE CHANDAYYA, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, APPELLANT Nos. 3 & 4 ARE MINORS HENCE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1 MRS. RAMANI.

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT 1-257 KALLUGUDDE HOUSE, KONAJE MANGALORE, MANGALORE TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-575018.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

ABDUL KHADER S/O HASANABBA ADULT

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:33708 MFA No. 6973 of 2018

¶21

PAVOOR POST, MANJESHWARA KASARAGOD KERAL STATE-671121.

¶22

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD HILL SIDE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX HOSANGADI, MANJESHWARA, KASARGOD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD. RAM BHAVAN COMPLEX NAVA BHARATH CIRCLE, KODIALBAIL MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-575003

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.L SREEKANTA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02/04/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1582/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND II ADDITIONAL MACT, MANGALURU, D.K. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

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 challenging the judgment and award dated 02.04.2018 passed by the MACT, Mangaluru (DK) in MVC 1582/2016.

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33708 MFA No. 6973 of 2018

¶31

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 29.06.2016, when the deceased Chandayya was standing on the extreme road side, in front of Asaigoli bus stand Konaje village, at that time, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-14-G-3369 which was being ridden in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶32

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of

¶33

the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

¶34

Upon service of notice, the respondents appeared through counsel and respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:33708 MFA No. 6973 of 2018

¶37

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.P21. On behalf of respondents, no witness was examined but got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1. 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.950,000/- 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.

¶38

The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33708 MFA No. 6973 of 2018

¶40

a) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was aged about 51 years at the time of the accident and had a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- by working as a Coolie. However, the assessment of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.

¶41

b) Secondly, the claimants are wife and three children. The Tribunal instead of deducting 1/4^th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses has erred in deducting 1/3^rd of the income.

¶42

c) Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017

¶43

SC 5157], in cases, where the deceased was selfemployed or received a fixed salary, an addition of 10% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ is warranted when the deceased was between the age group of 50-60 years. The said principle shall be considered in the present case.

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33708 MFA No. 6973 of 2018

¶45

d) Fourthly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’.

¶46

e) Fifthly, immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to hospital and was treated as inpatient for a period of 7 days and thereafter succumbed to the injuries on 05.07.2016. The claimants have produced medical bills at Ex.P-21 amounting to Rs.20,798/-. But the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation towards 'medical expenses'.

¶47

f) Sixthly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782] , each of the claimants is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’. g) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side.

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:33708 MFA No. 6973 of 2018

¶49

With the above contentions, the learned counsel

¶50

sought to allow the appeal.

¶51

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following countercontentions:

¶52

a) Firstly, although the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, they have failed to substantiate their claim with supporting documents. The income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- p.m. is on the higher side.

¶53

b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’.

¶54

c) Thirdly, the Tribunal considering the number of dependents has rightly deducted 1/3^rd of the income towards personal expenses.

¶55

d) Fourthly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:33708 MFA No. 6973 of 2018

¶57

deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶58

e) 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.

¶59

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶60

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

¶61

It is not in dispute that Chandayya died in the road traffic accident occurred on 29.06.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶62

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but failed to produce supporting

¶63

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:33708 MFA No. 6973 of 2018

¶64

documents to substantiate their claim. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal considering the age, avocation of the deceased and number of dependents has rightly assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m.

¶65

To the aforesaid income, 10% 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 ‘PRANAY

¶66

SETHI’ (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.11,000/-. Since there are 4 dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/4^th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses instead of 1/3^rd deducted by the Tribunal and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 51 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘11’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.10,89,000./- (Rs.11,0001211*3/4) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶67

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:33708 MFA No. 6973 of 2018

¶68

In addition, the claimants are entitled to

¶69

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

¶70

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

¶71

Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to hospital and was treated as inpatient for a period of 7 days and thereafter succumbed to the injuries on 05.07.2016. The claimants have produced medical bills at Ex.P-21 amounting to Rs.20,798/-. Therefore, I am inclined to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of 'medical expenses'.

¶72

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:33708 MFA No. 6973 of 2018

¶73

15. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

¶74

compensation:

¶75

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	10,89,000
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Loss of spousal consortium	40,000
Loss of Parental consortium	1,20,000
Medical expenses	20,000
Total	12,99,000

¶76

16. In the result, the following order is passed:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶79

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

¶80

Rs.12,99,000/- as against Rs.950,000/- awarded by the

¶81

Tribunal.

¶82

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:33708 MFA No. 6973 of 2018

¶83

d) 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.

¶84

e) 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

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

¶86

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶87

DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Mrs Ramani v. Abdul Khader

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Ramani v. Abdul Khader

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. Ambarish @ Amresh Vs the Manager

Sri. Mahesh L S Vs Sri. Mauhmmed Shane Rab

Sri Ramchandra Kini Vs Sri Ananda Ramachandra Kini

Smt Menaka @ Manka Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sanjeevamma Vs the Manager

Sri. Gowrisha Vs Sri. Somashetty