Smt Laxmidevi Vs Ramachandra

RAMACHANDRA, S/O NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, LORRY DRIVER, LORRY NO.KA-2/6537, RESIDING IN FRONT OF I.B.KOPPA ROAD, THIRTHAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶16

K.R.NAGARAJA (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS)

¶17

2(A). K.N.SUMATHI, W/O. NAGARAJ,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36500-DB MFA No. 2480 of 2017

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

2(B). K.N.RAMACHANDRA, S/O. NAGARAJ,

¶21

2(C). K.N.JAYACHANDRA, S/O. NAGARAJ,

¶22

ALL ARE RESIDENT OF I.B.KOPPA ROAD, THIRTHAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶23

SRIRAMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER AT SHIVAMOGGA, POLICY NO.10003/31/10/264424, PERIOD FROM 23/01/2010 TO 22/01/2011 IN RESPECT OF LORRY BEARING REGN.NO.KA-20/6537.

¶24

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., GE PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, YERWADA, PUNE-411006 BY IT AUTHORISED OFFICER IN RESPECT OF POLICY NO. OG-10-1724-1802-00008452. PERIOD FROM 30.07.2009 TO 29.07.2010 IN RESPECT OF MOTOR CYCLE HERO HONDA SPLENDOR WITH REG.NO. KA-05/J-9570.

¶25

SMT. ASHA, W/O. S.K.GOPALA, HINDU, MAJOR, D/O LATE SRINIVASA, R/O K.P.C. COLONY, MASTHIKATTE, HOSANAGARA TALUK.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1, R2(A), R2(C) AND R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36500-DB MFA No. 2480 of 2017

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.160/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-9, AT SAGAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶31

THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and

¶33

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶37

The appellant-claimant has filed this appeal for

¶38

enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.04.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and Member, Additional MACT-9, Sagar (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC.No.160/2010.

¶39

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

¶40

to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36500-DB MFA No. 2480 of 2017

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Brief facts of the case are that, on 18.02.2010 around 6.00 pm, Sri H.S. Arun Kumar (hereinafter referred as the deceased) was proceeding from Thirthahalli towards Masthikatte on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-15/J-9570, at that time, respondent No.1 being the driver of Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-20/6537 came from the opposite direction with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle and caused accident. Due to the said impact, H.S.Arun sustained grievous head injury. Thereafter, the injured Arun was admitted at Kasturba Hospital, Manipal and he was in Coma Stage for 57 days and died after two months i.e., on 15.04.2010 when he was under treatment. Hence claim petition was filed u/s 166 of MV Act, for seeking compensation.

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants Sri B.N.Shetty, vehemently contended that, the Tribunal awarded very meager compensation considering the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36500-DB MFA No. 2480 of 2017

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

which is on lower side. Secondly, the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased. Thirdly, the Tribunal has failed to award fair compensation under the head 'loss of consortium' for which the claimants would be entitled to at Rs.40,000/- each. Thus, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶48

Per contra, Sri B.C.Shivannegowda, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri A.N.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under each head which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶49

Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers including the original records of the

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36500-DB MFA No. 2480 of 2017

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Tribunal, the point that would arise for our consideration in the appeal is:

¶53

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?

¶54

In the instant appeal, the respondents - Insurance Companies have not disputed the accident in question, the cause of death of the deceased and the liability to pay compensation to the claimants. However, the insurance companies have disputed the quantum of compensation.

¶55

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is considered, the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/per month, however the insurance companies have not filed any appeals or objections to that effect. Hence, the notional income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.10,000/- by the Tribunal which is fair and reasonable one.

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:36500-DB MFA No. 2480 of 2017

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

The deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of accident. The respondents - insurance companies have not disputed this aspect. Hence, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age group of the deceased is '17'.

¶60

The deceased died leaving behind his mother and a married sister. Hence, it is appropriate to deduct 50% towards her personal expenses.

¶61

The Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PRANAY SETHI reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held that, if the deceased is below the age 40 years, then 40% of the income of the deceased would be added as future prospects. Hence, the loss of dependency is reckoned as under:

¶62

Rs.10,000 + Rs.4,000 (40%) = Rs.14,000/-.

¶63

Rs.14,000 - 50% = Rs.7,000/-

¶64

Rs.7,000 x 12 x 17 = Rs.14,28,000/-

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:36500-DB MFA No. 2480 of 2017

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

The Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding fair compensation under conventional heads. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRURAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in 2017(16) SCC 680 , the claimants are entitled towards ‘loss of consortium’ at Rs.40,000/each which comes to the total of Rs.80,000/-, Rs.15,000/towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- for ‘funeral expenses’.

¶68

Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation:

¶69

HEADS	Rs.
Loss of dependency	14,28,000
Loss of consortium	80,000
Funeral expenses	15,000
Loss of estate	15,000
TOTAL	15,38,000
Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	10,70,000
ENHANCED COMPENSATION	4,68,000

¶70

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:36500-DB MFA No. 2480 of 2017

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

In the result, we pass the following:

¶73

O R D E R

¶74

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶75

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.15,38,000/- as against Rs.10,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation of Rs.4,68,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realisation.

¶76

iii. Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount together with accrued interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, the claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 244 days.

¶77