Partly allowed

Smt Vishalakshmamma v. Sri Rangaswamy

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2024MFA/7206/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parents of a man killed in a motorcycle-tractor collision appealed for enhancement of motor accident compensation. The High Court reassessed notional income at Rs.9,500 per month with 40% future prospects and enhanced consortium, estate and funeral heads, awarding Rs.4,48,000 additional compensation against the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.4,48,000 with 6% p.a. interest awarded against insurer (respondent No.2), payable within four weeks; Tribunal's apportionment and investment order maintained.

Smt Vishalakshmamma Vs Sri Rangaswamy — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:47924-DB MFA No.7206/2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD 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.7206/2018 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.VISHALAKSHMAMMA W/O RAJASHEKAR DIXIT AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶10

SRI RAJASHEKAR DIXIT S/O SUBBARAYA DIXIT AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶11

BOTH ARE R/AT KEMPE GOWDA CIRCLE IJOOR, RAMNAGAR TOWN …APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY MS.ANJANA.A.V., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RAKSHITHA D J. ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI RANGASWAMY S/O. NAGAIAH MAJOR R/AT GOLLARACHANNAIAHANA DODDI BILAGUMBA, KASABA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK

¶16

THE MANAGER

¶17

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD. 1^ST FLOOR, R V R COMPLEX OPP LIC OFFICE, BEHIND

¶18

K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND, RAMANAGARA (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE) …RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI K.SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:47924-DB MFA No.7206/2018

¶21

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.05.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.217/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MACT AND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND

¶24

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

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

¶27

Challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.217/2016 on the file of Additional MACT and Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara, the claimants are in appeal.

¶28

For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶29

Parents of the deceased Pradeep Dikshith have filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for short) claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of said Pradeep Dikshith in a road traffic accident dated 28.03.2016 at about 8.00 a.m.

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:47924-DB MFA No.7206/2018

¶31

It is contended that the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-09-EF-9433 along with his friend Ravi Kumar. When they reached near Hombaiahnadoddi petrol bunk, Jalamangala, Ramanagar, at that time, driver of tractor and trailer bearing Registration No.KA-42-T-3077/3078 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. Resultantly rider sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. It is further contended that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of the accident and used to earn Rs.500/- per day as he was Archak in a temple and was the only bread-earner of the family. The claimants have suffered emotionally and lost financial dependency. It is also contended that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of tractor and trailer and the said tractor was insured with respondent No.2 and they are liable to pay the compensation. Hence they sought for allowing the claim petition.

¶32

Though respondent No.1 appeared, he did not file written statement. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying averments made in the claim petition. It is

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:47924-DB MFA No.7206/2018

¶35

contended that the driver of the tractor and trailer was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident and payment of compensation is subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶36

The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties. Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Respondents did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal assessed notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, applied 17 multiplier and awarded Rs.9,99,600/under the head of loss of dependency. In total it awarded Rs.10,29,600/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization.

¶37

Being aggrieved by the quantum of

¶38

compensation, the claimants are in appeal.

¶39

Ms.Anjana, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/per month. The pleadings and evidence show that the

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:47924-DB MFA No.7206/2018

¶41

deceased was working as Archak and earning Rs.500/- per day. It is further submitted that compensation awarded by the Tribunal on conventional heads is also on the lower side. She seeks to reassess the same. In support of her contentions, she places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi¹ , Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation² and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram³ . Hence, she seeks to allow the appeal.

¶42

Per contra, Sri S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was working as Archak, no proof is produced to substantiate the said claim. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income at Rs.7,000/- per month. He submits that considering the age, notional income assessed by the Tribunal is just and the Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the claimants. Hence, the question of

¶43

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶44

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶45

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:47924-DB MFA No.7206/2018

¶47

enhancement of compensation does not arise and seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶48

We have heard arguments of learned Counsel for the parties.

¶49

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

¶50

Analysis

¶51

The parties to the proceedings are not in dispute that in a road traffic accident dated 28.03.2016 one Pradeep Dikshith son of the claimants sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It is also not in dispute that the jurisdictional police registered an FIR against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-42-T3077/3078 and after completing the investigation, filed charge sheet against him. Considering the investigating materials, the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the driver of the tractor and trailer was negligent in causing the accident in question and the said finding has attained finality

¶52

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:47924-DB MFA No.7206/2018

¶53

as the insurance company has not challenged the impugned judgment and award.

¶54

Insofar as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any legally acceptable evidence to substantiate the income of the deceased. Considering the prevailing wage rates for the year 2016 and also keeping in mind the notional income chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, we notionally reassess the income of the deceased at Rs.9,500/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 26 years and unmarried. Hence, the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% of the income towards loss of future prospects, appropriate deduction towards personal and living expenses would be 50% and applicable multiplier is 17. Therefore, loss of dependency is reassessed at Rs.9,500/- + Rs.3,800 (40% of Rs.9,500)= Rs.13,300/-. Rs.13,300 - 50% of Rs.13,300/- = Rs.6,650/-. Rs.6,650/- x 12 x 17= Rs.13,56,600/-.

¶55

The claimants being parents, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:47924-DB MFA No.7206/2018

¶57

Sethi’s and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd’s.

¶58

cases referred supra, each of the claimants are entitled to compensation on the head of consortium at Rs.40,000/- with escalation of 10%.

¶59

Similarly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case referred supra , the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and transportation of dead body with escalation at 10%. The compensation carries interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Therefore the just compensation payable is as follows:

¶60

Sl. No.	Particulars	Compensation awarded in Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	13,56,600/-
2.	Loss of consortium 40,000 + 10% i.e. 44,000/-x 2	88,000/-
3.	Loss of estate (15,000 + 10% i.e. 16,500)	16,500/-
4.	Funeral expenses & transportation charges 15,000+10% i.e. 16,500	16,500/-
	Total	14,77,600/-
	Less: awarded by the Tribunal	10,29,600/-
	Enhanced compensation	4,48,000/-

¶61

Respondent No.2 being the Insurer is liable to pay the compensation. The compensation shall carry interest

¶62

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:47924-DB MFA No.7206/2018

¶64

at 6% per annum. Therefore the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

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

¶67

(i) The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,48,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶68

(ii) Respondent No.2 shall deposit the enhanced compensation, on adjusting the amount if any, deposited before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶69

(iii) The award of the Tribunal with regard to apportionment and investment is maintained.

¶70

(iv) Registry is directed to transmit trial Court records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶71

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶72

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶73

KSR

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Smt Vishalakshmamma v. Sri Rangaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Vishalakshmamma v. Sri Rangaswamy

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

Smt. Mani K Vs Sri Murali v

The National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Smt. G Sakunthala

The Manager Vs Thomas P

Sri N Sreekanthaiah Vs Smt. Marabhathini Guravamma

Mr. N. Abdul Haris Vs State of Karnataka

G Nagarathna Vs G Manjunatha