Partly allowed

Rathnamma @ Nagarathnamma @ Nagarathna v. S Raghu

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2024MFA/794/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants sought enhancement of motor accident death compensation awarded by the MACT, Hiriyur. The court recomputed income using the legal services authority chart, applied 40% future prospects and multiplier 18, enhancing compensation from Rs.14,45,800 to Rs.17,84,200 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.17,84,200 with 6% p.a. interest, payable by insurer within four weeks; tribunal's apportionment and deposit terms intact.

Rathnamma @ Nagarathnamma @ Nagarathna Vs S Raghu — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10538 MFA No. 794 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 794 OF 2023 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RATHNAMMA @ NAGARATHNAMMA @ NAGARATHNA, W/O LATE MANJUNATHA, NOW AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶8

POORNIMA,

¶9

D/O LATE MANJUNATHA, NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶10

GIRIYAPPA, D/O LATE THIMMANNA, NOW AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶11

PUTTAMMA,

¶12

W/O GIRIYAPPA @ P. REHAMATH SAB,

¶13

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT

¶15

MASKAL VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 599.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N.R, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

S. RAGHU, S/O SHANTHAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NO. 130, 7TH B CROSS, ROTARY NAGARA, KODICHIKKANNAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:10538 MFA No. 794 of 2023

¶22

THE MANAGER,

¶23

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MAIN ROAD, TUMKUR TOWN - 572 101.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. RAVI S, SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.07.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.297/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

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

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 05.07.2022 passed in MVC.No.297/2018 by the Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hiriyur, Chitradurga (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The appeal is preferred on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the tribunal.

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10538 MFA No. 794 of 2023

¶31

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

¶32

their status before the tribunal.

¶33

Brief facts of the case is as under:

¶34

This is an unfortunate case of death of one

¶35

Veeresh who was bringing the guests from Bengaluru to chillahalli village in a car bearing No.KA-51-AA7865 to attend marriage in that village. At about 02.10 a.m., when the car was going nearby Hariyabbe village at that time its driver drove the car in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against roadside name board. Due to the said accident the car turned turtle and Veeresh suffered fatal injuries and succumbed on the spot. The claimants who are mother, sister and grand parents have filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

¶36

3.1. On service of notice, respondent No.2 has filed

¶37

statement of objections, there was no objections filed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 denied the claim of the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petition on

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:10538 MFA No. 794 of 2023

¶40

the grounds urged and pleaded in the statement of objections.

¶41

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

¶42

3.3. In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and another as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P12. On the other hand, respondents did not adduce evidence.

¶43

3.4. On the basis of material evidence, both oral and

¶44

documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.14,45,800/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition within 3 months from the date of the order and also held that the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company to be liable to deposit the compensation to the claimants.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:10538 MFA No. 794 of 2023

¶47

3.5. Being aggrieved by the meagre compensation

¶48

awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award.

¶49

The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants/claimants is 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.

¶50

Per contra , learned counsel for

¶51

respondent/Insurance Company submits that the tribunal has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Therefore, on these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶52

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company. The points for

¶53

consideration in this case:

¶54

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10538 MFA No. 794 of 2023

¶55

Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation if so, what amount?

¶56

The occurrence of accident, involvement of the vehicle death having occurred due to the accident are all assessed by production of Exs.P1 to P8. On careful perusal of this police records it is evident that negligence is rightly attributed as against the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶57

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, and income the multiplier awarded in awarding compensation and age of the deceased was 25 years as on the date of occurrence of accident. The appropriate multiplier would be '18' which is correctly taken by the tribunal which does not call for interference.

¶58

The income assessed by the tribunal is Rs.9,000/- p.m, where as legal services authority chart for the year 2017 describes Rs.11,000/- per month, hence income is taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m., as the deceased was less than 40 years, additional 40% has to be added

¶59

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:10538 MFA No. 794 of 2023

¶60

towards future prospectus and 50% to be deducted as the deceased was a bachelor and unmarried which does not call for interference.

¶61

In view of the above, the loss of dependency would be Rs.16,63,200/- (Rs.11,000/-+40% =Rs.15,400/- x 1/2= Rs.7,700/- x 12x18).

¶62

The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium per person, which does not call for interference. However, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, 10% escalation for one block period on the same to be awarded under this head, which would come to Rs.88,000/- (Rs.40,000/-x2=Rs.80,000/- + 10%).

¶63

Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- each which would be awarded. In all, Rs.30,000/- with an escalation of 10% which comes to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000+10%).

¶64

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:10538 MFA No. 794 of 2023

¶65

In view of the above, the claimants would be

¶66

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.17,84,200/- along

¶67

with interest at 6% p.a., as against Rs.14,45,800/- as mentioned in the table below:

¶68

Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of Dependency	16,63,200-00
Loss of consortium +10% escalation	88,000-00
Loss of estate and Funeral and	33,000-00
transportation expenses
TOTAL	17,84,200-00

¶69

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

¶72

ii) The judgment and award dated 05.07.2022

¶73

passed in MVC.No.297/2018 by the Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hiriyur, Chitradurga, is modified;

¶74

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC:10538 MFA No. 794 of 2023

¶76

iii) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.17,84,200/- as against Rs.14,45,800/- awarded by the tribunal;

¶77

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest @ 6% p.a.;

¶78

v) The terms and conditions with regard to the apportionment of shares in the ratio stipulated by the tribunal stands undisturbed, so also the fixed deposit and the release of the amount.

¶79

vi) Enhanced compensation shall be paid by the respondent/Insurance company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order with interest at 6% p.a.

¶80

vii) The same shall also be released in favour of appellants/claimants in accordance to the share allotment made by the tribunal.

¶81

NC: 2024:KHC:10538 MFA No. 794 of 2023

¶82

10 -

¶83

viii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by

¶84

the tribunal shall stand intact.

¶85

Sd/JUDGE

¶86

PK CT: BHK

Rathnamma @ Nagarathnamma @ Nagarathna v. S Raghu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathnamma @ Nagarathnamma @ Nagarathna v. S Raghu

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

The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt Shanthamma @ Shantha

Mr Siddappa Vs Mr Shaffi Hussain

Sri.N.S. Satish Babu Vs M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solution Pvt. Ltd.

Deepak K.G. Vs Sugu G @ Sukumaran

Mahesh D Vs Santosh

Santhosha @ Santosha Nagarajappa Vs Govardhan Reddy M