Partly allowed

Smt Seetha C v. Sri Nagesh K R

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2024MFA/9849/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross appeals by claimants and insurer against a motor accident compensation award for a fatal car accident. The High Court accepted income tax returns to fix the deceased's annual income at Rs.3,08,595/-, added 25% future prospects with multiplier 14, enhanced total compensation from Rs.16,45,000/- to Rs.43,03,312/-, and reduced interest from 9% to 6% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.43,03,312/- with 6% p.a. interest from date of petition till realization; insurer directed to deposit within four weeks.

Smt Seetha C Vs Sri Nagesh K R — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:42126-DB MFA No.9849/2018 C/W MFA No.2770/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9849/2018 (MV-D)

¶7

C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2770/2018 (MV-D)

¶9

IN M.F.A. No.9849/2018

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. SEETHA .C W/O LATE MAHADEV .M NOW AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

KUM. BHAVYA .M D/O LATE MAHADEV .M NOW AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS.

¶14

MST. MOHAN BABU S/O LATE MAHADEV .M NOW AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS.

¶15

MST. TEJAS .M S/O LATE MAHADEV .M NOW AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.

¶16

SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

¶17

MINOR APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 ARE REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/ MOTHER 1^ST APPELLANT HEREIN.

¶18

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.747/B 1ST CROSS, 7TH MAIN, 6TH STAGE

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:42126-DB MFA No.9849/2018 C/W MFA No.2770/2018

¶21

BEML LAYOUT, THUBARAHALLI BENGALURU NORTH, RAMAGONDAHALLI BENGALURU-560066.

¶22

…APPELLANTS

¶23

(BY MS. SUSHMITHA G, ADV., FOR MR. GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADV.,)

¶24

AND:

¶25

SRI. NAGESH K.R. S/O RAMEGOWDA MAJOR IN AGE RESIDING AT NO.64/2 KUPPAHALLI, KANTHAPRUA NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571432.

¶26

RELIANCE GENERLA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., UNNATHI ARCADE NO.6/111 & 6/112 1ST FLOOR, 1ST BLOCK DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD 1ST MAIN ROAD, RAJAINAGAR BENGALURU-560010 REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADV., FOR R2 V/O/DTD:20.06.2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶29

¶30

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.02.2018 IN MVC NO.5899/2016, PASSED BY THE COURT SMALL CAUSES AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU (SCCH-16) AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AWARDED FROM RS.16,45,000/- TO RS.1,00,00,000/- ALONG WITH COST AND INTEREST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42126-DB MFA No.9849/2018 C/W MFA No.2770/2018

¶32

IN M.F.A. NO.2770/2018

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., UNNATHI ARCADE, 5/111 & 6/112 1ST FLOOR, 1ST BLOCK DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR, 1ST MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560010.

¶35

ALSO AT THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NO.28 CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560001 NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL.

¶36

...APPELLANT

¶37

(BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADV.,)

¶38

AND:

¶39

SMT. SEETHA .C W/O LATE MAHADEV M AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶40

KUM. BHAVYA .M D/O LATE MAHADEV M AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS.

¶41

MST. MOHAN BABU S/O LATE MAHADEV M AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS.

¶42

MST. TEJAS M S/O LATE MAHADEV M AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.

¶43

SMT. SHANTHAMMA

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:42126-DB MFA No.9849/2018 C/W MFA No.2770/2018

¶46

W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

¶47

RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 ARE ALL MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. SEETHA C i.e., RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶48

ALL ARE R/AT NO.747/B 1ST CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD 6TH STAGE, BEML LAYOUT THUBARAHALLI BENGALURU NORTH RAMAGONDANAHALLI BENGALURU-560066.

¶49

SRI. NAGESH K.R. S/O RAMEGOWDA R/O NO.64/2, KUPPAHALLI KANTHAPURA NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶50

...RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY MS. SUSHMITHA G, ADV., FOR MR. GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADV., FOR R1 TO R5 R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1 V/O DTD:20.06.2022 NOTICE TO R6 IS D/W)

¶52

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.02.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF X ASCJ AND XXXV ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (SCCH-16), AT BENGALURU, IN MVC NO.5899/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶53

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶54

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:42126-DB MFA No.9849/2018 C/W MFA No.2770/2018

¶57

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶58

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

¶59

Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of the parties, the same are taken up for final disposal.

¶60

Challenging the judgment and award in MVC No.5899/2016 passed by the X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru, claimants have filed MFA No.9849/2018 and insurer has filed MFA No.2770/2018.

¶61

The appellants in MFA No.9849/2018 were the claimants and respondent Nos.1 and 2 were respondent Nos.1 and 2 in MVC No.5899/2016 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶62

The wife, children and mother of deceased Sri.Mahadev M. filed MVC No.5899/2016 before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of Sri.Mahadev M. in a road accident that occurred on 29.07.2016. It was contended that when Mahadev was traveling in a car bearing registration No.KA-54-5744 from Nelamangala to Hassan, the driver of the

¶63

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42126-DB MFA No.9849/2018 C/W MFA No.2770/2018

¶64

car drove the same in high speed, lost control over the car and the said car capsized. In the accident, the inmates of the car suffered fatal injuries and Mahadev succumbed to the injuries.

¶65

It was further contended that the deceased was doing real estate business and earning Rs.5,00,000/- p.a. due to his sudden demise, the claimants lost his income, love and affection. Hence, they sought compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

¶66

Respondent No.1 - owner of the vehicle filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with respondent No.2 and if the Tribunal allows the claim petition, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.2 - insurer filed written statement denying the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It was further contended that the liability, if any, of the insurer was subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was also contended that the driver of the offending car was not having valid driving license as on the date of accident, thereby there was in violation of the conditions of the policy. They sought dismissal of the claim petition.

¶67

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:42126-DB MFA No.9849/2018 C/W MFA No.2770/2018

¶69

The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties. Claimant No.1 got examined herself as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. The respondents did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal, assessing the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.10,000/p.m., awarded total compensation of Rs.16,45,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. saddling the liability on the insurer to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved, the claimants as well as the insurer are in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation.

¶70

Sri.Gopal Krishna N., learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Tribunal committed grave error in assessing the income of the deceased only at Rs.10,000/p.m. It is submitted that the claimants have produced Exs.P10 and P11, the income tax assessment forms as well as acknowledgements for the years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 201516 and the gross income declared is Rs.3,19,450/-, Rs.4,11,930/- and Rs.4,39,246/-, respectively and taking average of 3 years, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.3,90,208/-. It is further submitted that consortium awarded is also incorrect and all the claimants are entitled to

¶71

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:42126-DB MFA No.9849/2018 C/W MFA No.2770/2018

¶72

compensation on that head. He seeks to allow the appeal filed by the claimants.

¶73

Sri.Ashok N.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - insurer submits that the Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m. and recorded its reason at paragraph 13 of the judgment. It is submitted that though the claimants produced income tax assessment forms and acknowledgements, to corroborate the same, they have not produced any bank statement nor examined any independent witness to accept the income of the deceased as per Exs.P10 and P11. It is further submitted that the Tribunal committed error in awarding interest at the rate of 9% p.a. which is contrary to the settled principles of law and the interest should be at the rate of 6% p.a. which would be in consonance with the rate of interest paid by Banks to the customers on term deposits. He seeks to allow the appeal filed by the insurer modifying the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal appropriately.

¶74

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and examining the materials on record, the point that arises for

¶75

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:42126-DB MFA No.9849/2018 C/W MFA No.2770/2018

¶77

consideration is “ Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference”?

¶78

ANALYSIS

¶79

The evidence available on record indicates that the deceased Mahadev M. was traveling in car bearing registration No.KA-54-5744 on 29.07.2016 from Nelamangala to Hassan. The driver of the said car drove the same in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident in question. Deceased succumbed to the injuries. It is claimed that the deceased was aged about 44 years and was doing real estate business and earning Rs.5,00,000/- p.a. It is not in dispute that the jurisdictional police on investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the car for culpable negligence. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence has saddled the liability on the insurer of the car and directed to pay the compensation to the claimants.

¶80

The contention of the insurer that the claimants have not produced any corroborative evidence to prove the income has no merit. Exs.P10 and P11 are the acknowledgements for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2014-

¶81

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:42126-DB MFA No.9849/2018 C/W MFA No.2770/2018

¶82

15 and income tax returns for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2016-17. The said exhibits have certain presumptive value with regard to the income. We do not find any justification to disbelieve the income tax returns and the acknowledgements placed by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has erred in not considering Exs.P10 and P11. Admittedly, the insurer did not adduce any evidence nor could elicit anything from the cross-examination of PW-1 to disbelieve the occupation of deceased and Exs.P10 and P11. Hence, in the absence of any contrary evidence on record with regard to the income of the deceased, we are of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if we consider Exs.P10 and P11 to assess the income of the deceased.

¶83

The claimants, in order to prove the income of the deceased, produced Exs.P10 and P11, the acknowledgements and the income tax return verification forms. However, there is no acknowledgement for having paid the income tax by the deceased for the year 2016-17. Ex.P10 are the acknowledgements for having paid the income tax for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 wherein the gross total income is assessed at Rs.3,19,450/- for the assessment

¶84

11 -

¶85

NC: 2024:KHC:42126-DB MFA No.9849/2018 C/W MFA No.2770/2018

¶86

year 2013-14 and Rs.3,45,550/- for the assessment year 201415. The accident in question occurred on 29.07.2016. Considering the same, it would be just and appropriate to consider the gross income reflected in the assessment year 2014-15 which would be Rs.3,45,550/-. Out of the said amount, Rs.34,555/- is deducted towards the income tax and Rs.2,400/- towards professional tax. Hence, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.3,08,595/- after deduction of taxes. The deceased was aged 44 years. Hence, appropriate addition on the head of loss of future prospects would be 25% on the assessed income. There is no dispute with regard to the deduction of 1/4^th of the assessed income of the deceased for his personal and living expenses and applicable multiplier of 14. Hence, loss of dependency is assessed as under:

¶87

Rs.3,08,595/- + Rs.77,149/- (25%) = Rs.3,85,744 x 14 x 3/4 = Rs.40,50,312/-

¶88

The claimants are wife, children and mother of the

¶89

deceased. Each of them are entitled to consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- with 10% escalation i.e. Rs.44,000/- x 5 = Rs.2,20,000/-.

¶90

12 -

¶91

NC: 2024:KHC:42126-DB MFA No.9849/2018 C/W MFA No.2770/2018

¶92

The claimants are entitled to compensation under

¶93

the head of loss of estate at Rs.15,000/- with 10% escalation and Rs.15,000/- with 10% escalation under the head of transportation of dead body and funeral expenses which would be Rs.16,500/- and Rs.16,500/-, respectively. Therefore, just compensation payable is as follows:

¶94

Sl. No.	Particulars	Compensation awarded in Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs. 40,50,312/-
2.	Loss of consortium	Rs. 2,20,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	Rs. 16,500/-
4.	Loss of estate	Rs. 16,500/-
	Total	Rs.43,03,312/-

¶95

The insurer is right in contending that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Considering the prevailing rate of interest in the nationalized banks on term deposits, we are of the considered view that the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of the compensation.

¶96

For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

¶97

13 -

¶98

NC: 2024:KHC:42126-DB MFA No.9849/2018 C/W MFA No.2770/2018

¶99

ORDER

¶100

i. The appeals are allowed in part.

¶101

ii. The impugned award in MVC No.5899/2016 on the file of X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-16) is modified as follows:

¶102

(a) Claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.43,03,312/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶103

(b) Respondent No.2 - insurer shall deposit said amount, on adjusting the amount, already deposited, if any before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶104

¶105

(d) Registry shall transmit the amount in deposit and TCRs to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶106

Sd/-

¶107

(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶108

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶109

RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Smt Seetha C v. Sri Nagesh K R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Seetha C v. Sri Nagesh K R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaskaran Chandrasekar Vs Muniraju M

Goura Das Choudhury @ Gour Choudary Vs M/S. I C I C I Lombardo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Aruna S Vs Laxman D Talageri

Sri Mohammed Khaleel Vs Smt Vani

Smt. Shobha H N Vs Sri. Suraj Kumar B

Smt. Puttadevamma Vs Harisha