K. R Shruthi and Baby Varshitha and K B Channabasavaiah and K.R. Suvarnamma V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and Ningappa

MFA/7601/2011

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the claimants, K. R Shruthi and her family, against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of K.C. Madhu in a road traffic accident. The accident occurred on 8.11.2007 when a Canter Lorry collided with the motorcycle ridden by the deceased. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs.4,24,000 as compensation, which the appellants found insufficient, leading to this appeal. The High Court, after re-evaluating the evidence and considering the arguments, increased the compensation to Rs.7,65,000, citing inadequate assessment of the deceased's income and the emotional and financial impact on the family.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799288 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sarla Verma's case
• Laws Referred To: Motor Vehicles Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K N SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: D R NAGARAJA
• Keywords: Claim Petition; Death; Enhancement of compensation; Negligence; Road traffic accident
• Section: 166; 173(1)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013 :PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL :AND: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. KUMARASWAMY MFA NO.7601/2011 (MV) BETWEEN: 1. K. R SHRUTHI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS W/O LATE K C MADHU 2. BABY VARSHITHA AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS D/O LATE K C MADHU APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR REP BY NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER IE., 1ST APPELLANT HEREIN ABOVE 3. K B CHANNABASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVALINGAPPA 4. K.R. SUVARNAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS K B CHANNABASAVAIAH ALL ARE R/O HULIYAR ROAD, HULIYUR CHITRADURGA DIST 572 143. ... APPELLANTS 2 (BY SRI D R NAGARAJA, ADV.) AND: 1. M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER DAVANAGERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA 577501 2. NINGAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OWNER OF CANTER LORRY NO.KA-40/1020 R/O SANIKERE POST, CHALLAKERE TQ CHITRADURGA 577522. .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K N SRINIVAS FOR R1. NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DT.18.3.13.) **** THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.04.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.83/2009 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HIRIYUR PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, N.K. PATIL, J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T This appeal is by the claimants directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 8.4.2011 passed in MVC No.83/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Hiriyur, (hereinafter 3 referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for short) for enhancement of compensation. 2. By its common judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,24,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization as against the claim made by the appellants on account of death of K.C. Madhu, in the road traffic accident. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased respectively and that on 8.11.2007 while the deceased along with another proceeding towards Kenkere village after completion of their work at Hiriyur in his Bajaj CT 100 bike bearing Registration No.KA- 44/E-5035 to reach Kenkere and when they came near Yalladakere village at about 2.00 a.m., all of a sudden, driver of Canter Lorry bearing Registration No.KA- 40/1020 came from Huliyar side in rash and negligent manner and in high speed dashed against the motor 4 bike and caused accident. Due to which, the rider K.C. Madhu, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the hospital and the pillion rider sustained injuries. The first appellant, being the wife of deceased, lost her husband at her young age. Appellant No.2 being the daughter lost her father’s love and affection, inspiration and guidance and appellant Nos.3 & 4 are the parents of the deceased lost their son at their old age. Due to the untimely death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, wife, daughter and parents of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.4,24,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the 5 Tribunal, the appellants are before this court seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent – Insurance Company. 5. The submission of Sri D.R. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the deceased was running a fancy store and an agriculturist and earning Rs.15,000/- per month from Fancy Stores and Rs.2,50,000/- per annum from agriculture and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income in the light of the evidence on record. It is further submitted that the first appellant has lost her husband at her young age and burdened with minor daughter and aged parents-in-law. The Tribunal erred in not awarding just compensation 6 towards loss of consortium. Further, it is submitted that the deceased met with an accident on 8.11.2007 but the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 10.11.2007 while under treatment, the appellants have spent huge amount towards medical, hospitalization and other incidental expenses between the date of accident and death. On this count also, the appellants are entitled for compensation and prayed for enhancement of compensation. 6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?” 7. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the road traffic accident. Further, it is not in dispute that 7 the appellants are none other than the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident, as per Inquest Mahazar and Post Mortem report at Ex.P-8 and P-9 respectively. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was hale and healthy and was running a Fancy Store. To support that, no document is produced by them. Though the appellants have stated that the deceased was paying income tax, no documentary evidence was produced. Since the accident is of the year 2007, we can safely re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and after deducting 1/4th (Rs.1,250/-) towards his personal expenses instead of 1/3rd as done by Tribunal since there are five dependants, the balance amount enure to the benefit of the appellants comes to Rs.3,750 /- per month. In the light of the decision in Sarla Verma’s case, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘16’ as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for Rs.7,20,000/- (Rs.3,750/- x 8 12 x 16) towards loss of dependency. Regarding conventional heads, we deem it fit to award Rs.45,000/- as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In all, that total compensation comes to Rs.7,65,000/- 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 8.4.2011 in MVC No.83/2009 is liable to be modified. 9. Accordingly, we pass the following: (1) The appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 8.4.2011 passed in MVC No.83/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hiriyur is hereby modified, awarding the compensation of Rs.3,41,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. (2) The first respondent - Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced 9 compensation of Rs.3,41,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (3) Immediately, on such deposit by the insurer, out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the 1st appellant for a period of ten years and renewable for another five years, with liberty to her to withdraw periodical interest accrued on it. (4) Another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the 2nd appellant till she attains the age of 30 years, with liberty reserved to the first appellant to withdraw periodical interest accrued on it, till she attains 21 years and from 21 years to 30 years appellant No.2 is entitled to withdraw the periodical interest. 10 (5) A sum of Rs.50,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the 3rd and 4th appellant initially for a period of five years with liberty to them to withdraw periodical interest accrued on it. (4) The remaining sum of Rs.41,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant Nos.1, 3 & 4 in equal proportion, immediately on deposit by the Insurer. (5) Draw the award, accordingly. SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE PL "