Partly allowed

Parvathamma v. Raghavendra. D

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2024MFA/7495/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the first appeal partly, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs 20,86,000/- to Rs 27,73,000/- regarding loss of dependency, consortium, and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs 20,86,000 to Rs 27,73,000; interest on enhanced amount fixed at 6% per annum; payment directed to Insurance Company within four weeks.

Parvathamma Vs Raghavendra. D — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:9765 MFA No. 7495 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7495 OF 2022 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PARVATHAMMA,

¶10

W/O LATE KUMAR C.B., NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶11

MEGHA,

¶12

D/O LATE KUMAR C.B., NOW AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,

¶13

MANJUNATH,

¶14

S/O LATE KUMAR C.B., NOW AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,

¶15

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

BYATARANGAIAH, S/O AJJAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶17

JAYAMMA, W/O BYATARANGAIAH, NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶18

ALL ARE RESIDING AT LALANAKERE VILLAGE POST, BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶19

NOTE: SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY

¶20

- 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9765 MFA No. 7495 of 2022

¶21

THEIR MOTHER N/G SMT.PARVATHAMMA.

¶22

ALL RESIDING AT CHIKKA TURUVEKERE, GUDDENAHALLI POST, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶23

…APPELLANTS

¶24

(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

RAGHAVENDRA. D, S/O DHARAME GOWDA, AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT TARANGLIN, 2ND CROSS, CHANNABASAVESHWARA NAGARA, UPPARHALLI, TUMKURU – 572 101.

¶27

CHOLAMANDALAM MS,

¶28

GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CO. LTD., UNIT-IV, 9TH FLOOR (LEVEL 06), GOLDEN HEIGHTS, COMPLEX, 59TH C CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, RAJAJINAGAR 4TH M BLOCK, BANGALORE – 560 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2023, NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶31

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.3031/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9765 MFA No. 7495 of 2022

¶33

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 30.01.2020 passed by the Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.3031/2018. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellants seek enhancement of compensation.

¶36

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

¶37

their status before the tribunal.

¶38

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶39

On 07.05.2018 at about 8.30 p.m., one Kumar C.B.,

¶40

was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-44L-8165 on the left side of the Turuvekere-Tiptur road, when he reached near Havala bridge, a car bearing registration No.KA-51-MC-8343 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9765 MFA No. 7495 of 2022

¶42

motor cycle of the said Kumar C.B. Due to the said impact, the said Kumar C.B. fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Turuvekere Government Hospital, wherein first aid treatment was given. Thereafter, to Adichunchanagiri Hospital, wherein he succumbed to the injuries.

¶43

3.1 It is stated by the claimants that the deceased Kumar C.B. was hale and healthy prior to the occurrence of accident. He was working as a mason and doing agricultural work and earning an income of Rs.20,000/per month. The claimants were solely dependent on the earnings of the deceased for the maintenance and livelihood. Hence, the claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

¶44

3.2 On service of notice, respondents appeared through their counsel, but respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition including age, avocation, income and negligence attributed against the

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9765 MFA No. 7495 of 2022

¶46

driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶47

3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.

¶48

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, claimant No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P11. On the other hand, respondents got examined a witness as RW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 and R2.

¶49

3.5 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,86,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation and also held respondents to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and respondent No.2Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount within two months from the date of the order.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:9765 MFA No. 7495 of 2022

¶52

3.6 Being aggrieved by the meagre compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶53

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding meagre compensation, which calls for interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶54

Per contra , learned counsel for respondentInsurance Company contends that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

¶55

Having heard the learned counsel for appellantsclaimants and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, perused the impugned judgment and award, it is seen that the claimants have produced the documents as Exs.P1 to P11, out of which, Exs.P1 to P8 are the Police

¶56

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:9765 MFA No. 7495 of 2022

¶57

records, which clearly depict the filing of FIR and laying of charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle and same has not been challenged or controverted. Therefore, the tribunal rightly attributed the negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle. Exs.P9 to P11 the copies of ration card, adhaar card and driving licence.

¶58

Now coming to the age, avocation and income as on the date of occurrence of accident, the tribunal assessed the income at Rs.10,500/-. It applied the multiplier as '16', as the deceased was aged 34 years as on the date of occurrence of accident, so also, added 40% towards future prospects and deducted 1/4^th towards personal and living expenses, as there are five dependents, which do not call for interference and the same are retained. The Legal Services Authority chart stipulates the notional income of Rs.12,500/- for the accident of the year 2018. Hence, income is taken as Rs.12,500/- as against Rs.10,500/- taken by the tribunal. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to the

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9765 MFA No. 7495 of 2022

¶60

compensation of Rs.25,20,000/- (Rs.12,500/- + 40% = Rs.17,500/- - 1/4^th = Rs.13,125/- x 12 x 16) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.20,16,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶61

The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. As there are five dependents, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National

¶62

Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 . Therefore, under the head of loss of consortium, the claimants are entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/x 5) along with 10% escalation towards one block period, which would be Rs.2,20,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- + 10%).

¶63

The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses, in all, Rs.30,000/-, which do not call for interference. However, as per the aforesaid decision, 10%

¶64

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:9765 MFA No. 7495 of 2022

¶65

escalation for one block period on the same is awarded

¶66

under this head, which would come to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 10%).

¶67

In view of the above, the claimants would be

¶68

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.27,73,000/- as

¶69

against Rs.20,86,000/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶70

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	25,20,000-00
Loss of consortium	2,20,000-00
Funeral and transportation expenses	33,000-00
TOTAL	27,73,000-00

¶71

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part ;

¶74

ii) The judgment and award dated 30.01.2020 passed in MVC No.3031/2018 by the Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pavagada, is modified;

¶75

iii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.27,73,000/- as against Rs.20,86,000/-;

¶76

iv) The interest awarded by the tribunal at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.20,86,000/- is left undisturbed. The enhanced

¶77

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:9765 MFA No. 7495 of 2022

¶78

compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum;

¶79

v) The compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶80

vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact;

¶81

vii) The original records shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith.

¶82

Sd/JUDGE

¶83

CPN CT: BHK

Parvathamma v. Raghavendra. D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvathamma v. Raghavendra. D

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 Mary Pushpa B Vs the Manager

The Manager, Vs H Shivaram

Dileep. G Vs Yogesh. G

Smt N Suguna Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt. Sunitha Vs Smt. Shivamma

Sri Bhaskar P Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.