Partly allowed

Smt Rajamma v. Sri Nagaraj K

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2024MFA/9476/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Motor Vehicles First Appeal, the High Court of Karnataka enhanced the compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident case. The Court adjusted the notional income of the deceased, applied the multiplier under Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, and ordered the insurer to pay an enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 2,14,300/- with interest at 6% p.a. to be deposited by the insurer.

Smt Rajamma Vs Sri Nagaraj K — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:42652-DB MFA No.9476/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.9476/2018 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT RAJAMMA W/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT ALADAHALLI VILLAGE NONAVINAKERE HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 224 …APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI BHANU PRAKASH H V, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

SRI NAGARAJ K S/O GOUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT G R 4/974 THANNEERAPANDAL IKKARAINEGAMMA POST SATYAMANGALAM TAMILNADU - 638 401

¶14

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.12, 2^ND FLOOR NEW HOSPITAL ROAD ABOVE STATE BANK OF INDIA & NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL GOBIPETTIPALAYAM

¶15

TAMILNADU - 638 452 …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI K.POORNABODHA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD: 07.02.2022)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:42652-DB MFA No.9476/2018

¶19

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.07.2018 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.801/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., TIPTUR PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

¶25

Though the matter has come up for admission, with consent of both side, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶26

“Whether the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant under the impugned award is just one?” is the question involved in this case.

¶27

Appellant was the claimant and respondents were the respondents before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶28

Claimant is the wife of the deceased Siddalingappa. On 06.05.2016 at 11.30 a.m. when Siddalingappa was proceeding on his TVS XL Super Moped near SLG Iyengar

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:42652-DB MFA No.9476/2018

¶31

Bakery, Gandhinagar Railway Gate, lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-AY-2875 hit the moped and caused instantaneous death of Siddalingappa. At the relevant time respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the owner and Insurer of the lorry respectively.

¶32

Claimant filed M.V.C.No.801/2017 before the Senior

¶33

Civil Judge and MACT XIV, Tiptur claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents on the ground that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and she was depending on his income. She further claimed that due to accident and untimely death of her husband, she has suffered damages and the respondents are liable to compensate the damages.

¶34

Respondent No.1 did not contest the petition. Respondent No.2 alone contested the petition denying occurrence of the accident, actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, age, occupation, income of the deceased and its liability to pay the compensation.

¶35

To substantiate the case, claimant got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14. Respondent No.2 did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal on hearing the parties and relying on Exs.P1 to P5 i.e. first information report,

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:42652-DB MFA No.9476/2018

¶38

complaint, charge sheet, spot mahazar and postmortem report respectively, held that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry.

¶39

The Tribunal notionally assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, considering the age of the deceased as 58 years applied 9 multiplier, deducted 1/3^rd of his income towards personal expenses and awarded compensation of Rs.3,24,000/- on the head of loss of dependency.

¶40

The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of

¶41

Rs.4,34,000/- on different heads as follows:

¶42

Sl. No.	Particulars		Amount in Rs.
1	Love and affection		Rs.1,00,000/-
2	Loss of dependency		Rs.3,24,000/-
3	Funeral, obsequies transportationexpenses	&	Rs. 10,000/-
	Total		Rs.4,34,000/-

¶43

Claimant has challenged the said award on the

¶44

ground that the compensation awarded on all the heads is on the lower side.

¶45

Sri H.V.Bhanuprakash, learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant reiterating the grounds of the appeal submits that the notional income considered by the Tribunal is

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42652-DB MFA No.9476/2018

¶47

on the lower side and the compensation awarded on other

¶48

heads is also on the lower side.

¶49

Per contra, Sri K.Poornabodha Rao, learned Counsel for respondent No.2/Insurer seeks to justify the impugned award on the ground that there was no proof of occupation and income of the deceased and having regard to his age, notional income considered is just one.

¶50

Respondents have not questioned the award on any grounds, therefore the findings of the Tribunal regarding actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and liability of the Insurer to pay the compensation have attained finality.

¶51

As per postmortem report/Ex.P5, deceased was aged 58 years. To substantiate the contention that the deceased was an agriculturist and also doing milk vending business, claimant relied on Exs.P6 and P7 RTC extracts. Considering the same, though there was no proof of actual income of the deceased, it could be said that he had some gainful avocation. The accident occurred in the year 2016. Considering the cost of living, prevailing wage rates during the said period and the evidence on record, the notional income

¶52

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42652-DB MFA No.9476/2018

¶53

considered by the Tribunal at Rs.4,500/- per month is on the lower side. Reasonably it can be said that notional income at Rs.9,500/- per month is just.

¶54

In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi¹ and having regard to the age of the deceased, 10% has to be added to the income of the deceased by way of future prospects. Therefore his income comes to (Rs.9,500/- + Rs.950/- =) Rs.10,450/- per month.

¶55

In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation² , and having regard to the fact that the claimant was the sole dependant of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards his personal expenses. Thereby his contribution to the family comes to Rs.5,225/- (Rs.10,450/- - Rs.5,225/-). The applicable multiplier for the said age is 9. Therefore the compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,64,300/- (Rs.5,225 x 9 x 12).

¶56

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶57

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶58

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:42652-DB MFA No.9476/2018

¶59

As per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶60

in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram³ the claimant is entitled to compensation on the head of consortium at Rs.40,000/- with escalation at 10% for every three years which comes to Rs.48,000/-.

¶61

As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and transportation with escalation at 10% for every three years. Therefore the

¶62

just compensation payable is as follows:

¶63

Sl. No.	Particulars	Compensation awarded in Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	5,64,300/-
2.	Loss of consortium	48,000/-
3.	Loss of estate	18,000/-
4.	Funeral expenses & transportation charges	18,000/-
	Total	6,48,300/-
	Less awarded by the Tribunal	4,34,000/-
	Enhancement	2,14,300/-

¶64

Respondent No.2 being the Insurer is liable to pay the enhanced compensation with interest at 6% per annum.

¶65

3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶66

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:42652-DB MFA No.9476/2018

¶67

The appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

The appeal is allowed in part.

¶70

(i) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,14,300/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶71

(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.

¶72

(iii) On such deposit, the amount shall be digitally released to the claimant.

¶73

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶74

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶75

KSR

¶76

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Smt Rajamma v. Sri Nagaraj K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rajamma v. Sri Nagaraj K

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. Puttadevamma Vs Harisha

Ayub Khan Vs the Proprietor

P B Nagaraj @ Pujara Nagaraja Vs the Partner

L Kiran Kumar Vs Managing Partner

Sri K H Bommalingaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Indiramma