Karnataka High Court
Smt Sumathi P vs Mahadeva on 22 February, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7739
MFA No. 963 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 963 OF 2020 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT SUMATHI P,
W/O LATE V PALANI,
AGE 48 YEARS.
2. SANTHOSHA .P,
S/O LATE V PALANI,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
3. SUHAS P,
S/O LATE V PALANI,
AGE 23 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.4, NANJUNDAPPA GARDEN,
PSK NAIDU ROAD,
DODDIGUNTA, COX TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 005.
Digitally signed
by AMBIKA H B ...APPELLANTS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. HALESHA R. G.,ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. MAHADEVA
S/O LATE RAJASHEKARA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT HEJJIGE VILLAGE, K.S.HUNDI,
CHIKYANCHATRA, NANJANAGUDU TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
PRESENTLY RESIDENT NO.1025, 6TH CROSS,
RAJENDRA NAGARA, KORAMANGALAL BENGALURU.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7739
MFA No. 963 of 2020
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,
ICICI LOMBARD, 414,
VEER SARVAKAR MARG,
NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE,
PRABHADEVI,
MUMBAI-400025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 05/02/2024)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.06.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.284/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
(SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the
judgment and award dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Motor
Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City (for short 'the
tribunal') in MVC No.284/2017. This appeal is founded on the
premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellants
seek enhancement of compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:7739
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their
status before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under;
That on 27.08.2016, one person Palani. V was travelling
in a Cab car bearing Reg. No KA-09-C-3558 and it was driven
by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to a
left side safety wall, due which all the occupants of said vehicle
sustained grievous injuries and died at hospital due to the
injuries.
3.1 The claimants are the legal representatives of
deceased Palani V., being wife, two major children. The
claimants were wholly dependent upon the earnings of the
deceased Palani V. On account of the untimely death of the
deceased, the claimants have been put to untold hardship and
misery. Hence, claimants filed claim petition seeking
compensation.
3.2 On service of notice, respondent No.1 owner of the
offending vehicle. However, respondent No.2 - Insurance
company appeared through its counsel and filed objections
statement denying the claim of the claimants including the age,
avocation and income and negligence attributed by the driver
NC: 2024:KHC:7739
of the offending vehicle. It is also pleaded that there is violation
of the terms and condition of policy. Hence, sought for
dismissal of the claim petition.
3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant
issues for consideration.
3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the
case, the claimant No.1 was examined as PW1 in MVC
No.284/2017 and PW2 in MVC No.283/2017 and the doctor as
PW3 and witness as PW4 and got marked documents as Exs.P1
to P.36. On the respondent side, there is no documents and
witnesses are produced or recorded.
3.5 On the basis materials evidence, both oral and
documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned
counsel for both the parties, tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.15,22,000/- with interest 7% p.a.
3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation
awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court
challenging the impugned judgment and award. On the ground
that the tribunal has failed to take into consideration the
number of dependants on the deceased for the calculating the
NC: 2024:KHC:7739
loss of dependency and erroneously taken 50% instead of 1/3rd
deduction. Hence, he seeks enhancement in this grounds.
4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel
for appellant - claimant that the compensation awarded by the
tribunal is on the lower side. The tribunal has not considered
the material evidence placed on record so also that tribunal has
not awarded reasonable compensation under the heads pain
and suffering, loss of income during laid up period, loss of
amenities and other heads. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal
preferred by the claimant and seeks enhancement of
compensation.
5. Per contra, learned counsel representing Insurance
Company vehemently contends that the tribunal has awarded
reasonable compensation on the basis of material evidence
placed on record, the same does not call for interference. He
also contends that under other heads also reasonable
compensation has been awarded by the tribunal, which does
not call for interference from the hands of this Court. Therefore,
on these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for appellant and
learned counsel for respondent - Insurance Company, perused
NC: 2024:KHC:7739
the impugned judgment and award, it is not in dispute that the
accident occurred on 27.08.2016. In order to establish this
aspect, the claimant has produced the documents as Exs.P1 to
P36 and on perusal of the same the occurrence of accident,
involvement of the vehicle and deceased Palani V., succumbed
to the injuries, the negligence is attributed against the driver of
the Cab car are not disputed.
7. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and
income of the deceased, the tribunal having assessed the age
to be 51 years, applied the multiplier at '11', which does not
call for interference. The income taken by the tribunal is
Rs.20,000/- per month as notional Income, same is retained.
In view of the fact that the deceased was aged under the age
group of 50-60 years, 10% towards future prospects requires
to be added, which is rightly taken by the tribunal. But, the
tribunal has committed an error in deducting 50% towards
personal and living expenses I am in agreement with the
counsel for appellant that since the deceased left behind three
legal representatives i.e., his wife and two children who are
aged 21 and 18 years, both are students, hence, there is no
material to show that they are working or dependent on
NC: 2024:KHC:7739
themselves. Hence, it is seen that they are dependents on the
deceased. Therefore, 1/3rd would have been deducted towards
personal and living expenses. Therefore, the income shall be
taken as Rs.14,667/- (Rs.22,000 - 1/3rd) Under circumstances,
loss of dependency would be Rs.19,36,044/- (Rs.14,667/- X
12 x 11) as against Rs.15,22,000/- awarded by the tribunal.
8. Towards loss of consortium, the tribunal has awarded
Rs.40,000/-. As there are three dependents, each would be
entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- per head. Therefore, under the
head of loss of consortium, the claimants are entitled for
Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 3). In view of the fact that the
accident was occurred in the year 2016, hence, two block
periods with 10% escalation. Hence, Rs.24,000/- would be
added to the loss of consortium.
9. The tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
estate and Rs.15,000/- towards transportation of dead body
and funereal expenses, the same is retained. Whereas, 10%
escalation towards one block period is required to be granted
as contemplated in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in
NC: 2024:KHC:7739
(2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680. Therefore,
Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000 + 10%) in all.
10. In view of the above, the claimants would be
entitled to a total compensation of Rs.21,13,044/- as
against Rs.15,22,000/- as mentioned in the table below:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency 19,36,044-00
Loss of consortium 1,20,000-00
Escalation of 20% towards loss 24,000-00
of consortium
Estate and funeral expenses 30,000-00
Escalation of 10% towards 3,000-00
estate and funeral expenses
TOTAL 21,13,044/-
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
ii) The judgment and award dated 06.03.2019 passed
by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru City in MVC No.284/2017is modified;
iii) The claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.
21,13,044/- as against the Rs. 15,22,000/-;
NC: 2024:KHC:7739
iv) The interest awarded by the tribunal at the rate of
7% per annum on the compensation amount is
retained. The enhanced compensation shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum;
v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid
by the respondent within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
Sd/-
JUDGE
THM
