Partly allowed

Smt. Bhagyamma v. Puttaswamygowda @ Puttegowda

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2024MFA/920/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The court enhanced compensation for loss of dependency and consortium but applied the Tribunal's finding of 50% contributory negligence to the final sum.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,51,900 awarded to the claimant with 6% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition.

Smt. Bhagyamma Vs Puttaswamygowda @ Puttegowda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:13043 MFA No. 920 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 920 OF 2014 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. BHAGYAMMA

¶8

W/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶9

RAMEGOWDA

¶10

S/O GANGEGOWDA,

¶11

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶12

BOTH ARE R/AT BEERADEVARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHICKMAGALUR TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-57344.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. NINGARAJA.M.N., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

PUTTASWAMYGOWDA @ PUTTEGOWDA

¶17

Digitally signed by S/O SIDDEGOWDA, THEJASKUMAR N AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, Location: HIGH NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL, COURT OF KARNATAKA ADISHAKTHINAGAR, CHICKMAGALUR, NATIVE OF BEERADEVARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHICKMAGALUR TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.06.2013

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:13043 MFA No. 920 of 2014

¶23

PASSED IN MVC NO.302/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE & MMACT, CHIKMAGALUR.

¶24

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Sri.Ningaraja.M.N., learned counsel for the appellants has appeared in person.

¶27

Notice to respondent was ordered on 12.01.2015. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶28

Though the appeal is listed today for dismissal, it is heard finally.

¶29

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.

¶30

4. The brief facts are these:

¶31

It is contended that on the 22^nd day of February 2011, the deceased Pavan had been to Beeradevarahalli in connection with a festival and at about 8:45 p.m., he was coming back to Karthikere village on his motorbike bearing Reg. No.KA-19/Q-

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13043 MFA No. 920 of 2014

¶33

9439 along with one Darshan @ Dharanesh. At that time, the rider of a TVS moped bearing No.KA-18/Q-9827, came from Karthikere in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motorbike. As a result of which, the motorbike was damaged and both the rider and the pillion rider fell and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, Mr.Pavan was shifted to M.G.Hospital, Chikmagalur, wherein the Doctor declared him dead. Contenting that the claimants are the dependants of the deceased, filed claim petition seeking compensation.

¶34

In response to the notice, the respondent appeared through its counsel and filed objections denying the petition averments and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:05.06.2013 allowed the petition in part. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant has urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:13043 MFA No. 920 of 2014

¶39

appellant and perused the appeal papers and also the records with utmost care.

¶40

The following points would arise for consideration:

¶41

Whether the Claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation.

¶42

Whether the Tribunal is justified in concluding that the claimant has attributed 50% of negligence to the accident.

¶43

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The Claimants' appeal is one for enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment. The grounds urged in the present appeal is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager.

¶44

It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,78,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand only) towards Loss of dependency. It is contended that the deceased was working as Mason and was earning Rs.350/(Rupees Three Fifty only) per day. However, there is no proof of income. In the absence of any proof of income, the chart

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13043 MFA No. 920 of 2014

¶46

prepared by the Legal Service Authority must be taken into consideration.

¶47

As per the chart, the salary of the deceased must be taken as Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred only) per month, if the accident is occurred in the year 2011. The age of the deceased was 20 years as on the date of accident, hence the multiplier 18 is to be adopted. Hence, the amount towards the loss of dependency is as under:

¶48

CALCULATION OF LOSS OF DEPENDENCY Future prospects: It is taken into consideration at 40% as per chart because the age of deceased is below 40 years. 6,500 X 40% = 2,600 6,500 + 2,600 = 9,100 9,100 divided by 2 = 4,550 9,100 - 4,550 = 4,550 4,550 x 12 x 18 = 9,82,800/Rs.9,82,800/-

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:13043 MFA No. 920 of 2014

¶50

In the present case, the deceased left behind his father and mother. Hence, they are entitled to compensation under the head "Loss of consortium". In view of law laid down by the Apex Court in PRANAY SETHI 's case, the interest should be considered to the loss of consortium at the rate of 10% per annum for every three years.

¶51

40,000 X 10/100 X 2 = Rs.8,000/-

¶52

40,000 + 8,000 = Rs.48,000/-

¶53

Rs.48,000/- X 2 = Rs.96,000/-.

¶54

Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.96,000/- (Rupees Ninety Six Thousand only) towards loss of consortium.

¶55

This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.33,000/(Rupees Thirty Three Thousand only) towards loss of estate and transportation of the dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremonies.

¶56

A good deal of arguments is canvassed on contributory negligence. The Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and concluded that the claimant has attributed 50% of

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:13043 MFA No. 920 of 2014

¶59

negligence to the accident. In my view, the conclusion so arrived at by the Tribunal is just and proper. I find no reasons to set-aside the said finding. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for 50% of the enhanced compensation amount.

¶60

Accordingly, this Court re-determines the

¶61

compensation as under:-

¶62

1.	Towards loss of	9,82,800	Rs.9,82,800/-
	dependency
2.	Towards loss of	96,000	Rs.96,000/-
	Consortium
3.	Loss of estate &	33,000	Rs.33,000/-
	transportation of dead
	body and funeral and
	obsequies.
		Total:	Rs.11,11,800/-
	Less: Compensation	awarded by the	Rs.4,08,000/-
	Tribunal
	Enhanc	ed compensation:	Rs.7,03,800/-
	Less: 50% of con	tributory negligence	- Rs.3,51,900/-
	50% of Enhan	ced compensation	Rs.3,51,900/-

¶63

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:13043 MFA No. 920 of 2014

¶65

9. Hence, the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

The Miscellaneous First appeal is allowed in part and the Judgment dated:05.06.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chikmagalur in M.V.C No.302/2011 is modified to the extent stated hereinabove.

¶68

The claimant is entitled for enhanced

¶69

compensation of Rs.3,51,900/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty One Thousand Nine Hundred only) with 6% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶70

The respondent is directed to deposit enhanced compensation amount along with 6% interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this Judgment.

¶71

Needless to observe that the claimant is not entitled for the interest for delayed period.

¶72

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:13043 MFA No. 920 of 2014

¶74

The Registry to draw the modified award

¶75

accordingly.

¶76

Office is directed to transmit the original

¶77

records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶78

Sd/JUDGE

¶79

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Smt. Bhagyamma v. Puttaswamygowda @ Puttegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhagyamma v. Puttaswamygowda @ Puttegowda

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

Priya Jogi Vs Mrs Sangitha Sanjay Sarnik

Smt. Hemavathi Vs G.A. Lakshmikantha

Sri Avinash Vemula Vs Mr.S.Suresh

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Puttamma

Smt T Asha Vs Sri Chikkanarayana Shetty @ Chikkanarayanappa

Chanda Pasha Vs Sri Umesh