Partly allowed

Narayanamma v. K. G. Kadirappa

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2024MFA/7108/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous first appeal under Section 173(1) of the MV Act, the High Court examined the compensation quantum awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against a driver of an insured tractor. The Court applied the apex court precedents in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance cases and issued enhanced compensation to the claimants.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was partially allowed. The impugned award was modified to enhance compensation by Rs. 80,000/-. The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within four weeks of receiving

Narayanamma Vs K. G. Kadirappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49673-DB MFA No. 7108 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7108 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NARAYANAMMA, W/O. LATE CHIKKA RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT MALAMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBKLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK,

¶9

CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICRT-562 015.

¶10

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRINIVASAMURTHY, S/O. LATE CHIKKA RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT MALAMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBKLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICRT-562 015.

¶12

SUNANDA W/O. RAMAKRISHNA, D/O. LATE CHIKKA RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT HIRANAPALYA, SRIGANDADA KAVALU, SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE-560 091.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY MS. SWATI G HEGDE, FOR SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATES)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49673-DB MFA No. 7108 of 2018

¶16

AND:

¶17

K. G. KADIRAPPA, S/O. GOVINDAPPA, PINDIPAPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 105.

¶18

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, S.B.L.T. BUILDING, POLYTECHNIC ROAD, CHINTAMANI TOWN-563 125.

¶19

JAYANNA S/O. KEPANNA, BILIKERE, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 105.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.B.A.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 14.10.2022 NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.109/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MACT, SIDLAGHATTA, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:49673-DB MFA No. 7108 of 2018

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

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

¶29

Challenging the judgment and award in MVC

¶30

No.109/2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and MACT, Sidlaghatta, the claimants have filed this appeal.

¶31

The appellants were claimants and respondent Nos.1 to 3 in this appeal were respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶32

The claimants filed the MVC No.109/2015 seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of Sri.Chikka Rangappa in a road traffic accident that occurred on 16.03.2015. It is contended that when Chikka Rangappa was proceeding on TVS motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-41-R-4541 towards Sidlaghatta, the Tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-11-T-3673 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the motorcycle, resultantly he fell down, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injures. It was further contended that the deceased was agriculturist earning

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:49673-DB MFA No. 7108 of 2018

¶35

Rs.20,000/- p.m. He was aged about 65 years as on the date of accident. The jurisdictional police registered the FIR in crime No.22/2015 and on investigation, filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending Tractor. Hence, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation.

¶36

Respondent No.1 filed objections denying age, avocation and income of the deceased. He contended that the Tractor involved in the accident was insured with respondent No.2, hence, he is not liable to pay any compensation. Respondent No.2 filed objections denying the income of the deceased, amount spent for treatment, etc. It contended that though the policy was in force the payment of compensation is subject to fulfilment of policy conditions. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶37

The Tribunal recorded evidence. Clamant No.1 was examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-8. Respondents did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/p.m., applied 7 multiplier, deducted 1/3^rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and awarded compensation of

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49673-DB MFA No. 7108 of 2018

¶39

Rs.5,04,000/- under the head of loss of dependency, and in total, it has awarded Rs.5,89,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. The claimants, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, are in appeal.

¶40

Sri. Swati G.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Pavan Chandra Shetty, learned counsel submits that the appellants are restricting the present appeal only with regard to award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium and other conventional heads. She submits that the award of compensation on conventional heads is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others¹ and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram & Ors.² . Hence, she seeks to allow the appeal.

¶41

Per contra, Sri.B.A.Ramakrishna, learned counsel

¶42

for respondent No.2 supports impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has awarded just

¶43

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶44

2 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:49673-DB MFA No. 7108 of 2018

¶46

compensation to the claimants which does not call for any modification in the present appeal. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

¶47

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

¶48

In the present appeal at hearing, the claimants question the impugned judgment and award only sofar it relates to compensation on conventional heads. In view of the same, the award of compensation of Rs.5,04,000/- by the Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency is unaltered.

¶49

The parties to the proceedings do not dispute that in the road traffic accident that occurred on 16.03.2015, deceased Chikka Rangappa died and the claimant No.1 is the wife, and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the son and daughter of the deceased. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Limited cases referred to supra, we are of the considered view that the compensation under the conventional

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:49673-DB MFA No. 7108 of 2018

¶51

heads is required to be re-assessed. The claimants are entitled to compensation under the head of loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- each with 10% escalation. The claimants are also entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- under the head of transportation of

¶52

dead body and funeral expenses with 10% escalation.

¶53

Therefore, just compensation payable is as follows:

¶54

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount
1	Loss of dependency	Rs.5,04,000
2	Loss of consortium	Rs.1,32,000
	(Rs.40,000 + 10% = 44,000 X 3)
3	Loss of estate (Rs.15,000 + 10%)	Rs.16,500
4	Transportation of dead body and	Rs.16,500
	Funeral expenses (Rs.15,000 +10%)
	Total	Rs.6,69,000
	Awarded by Tribunal	Rs.5,89,000
	Enhanced compensation	Rs.80,000

¶55

For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:49673-DB MFA No. 7108 of 2018

¶57

ORDER

¶58

The appeal is party allowed. The impugned award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:

¶59

i. The appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.80,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶60

ii. Respondent No.2 insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶61

iii. On such deposit, the Tribunal shall digitally release the same to claimant No.1.

¶62

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶63

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶64

BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Narayanamma v. K. G. Kadirappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayanamma v. K. G. Kadirappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt R Sujatha Vs Smt M Vidhya

Bharathi Vs P Sureshkumar

Ranga Naik Vs Ramadas Naik

Sri P v Nagaraj Vs the Manager

M Sadiq Basha Vs National Investigation Agency

The Branch Manager Vs Smt B L Chudamani