Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to three connected appeals filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.05.2012. The accident involved a car driven by the deceased Somachari and a lorry driven by respondent No.1, resulting in the death of Somachari and injuries to his son Manju @ Manjunatha. The claimants in MFA No.5861/2014 are the wife and mother of the deceased, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Pandavapura in MVC No.439/2012. The claimant in MFA No.5862/2014 is the mother of the deceased, seeking enhancement in MVC No.438/2012. The claimant in MFA No.5863/2014 is the injured Manju @ Manjunatha, seeking enhancement in MVC No.440/2012. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 6,50,000 for death and Rs. 1,50,000 for injuries. The High Court, after considering the evidence and arguments, held that the Tribunal had applied an incorrect multiplier of 13 instead of 18 for the deceased aged 47 years, and enhanced the compensation for loss of dependency from Rs. 4,68,000 to Rs. 6,48,000. It also enhanced compensation for loss of consortium from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 40,000, loss of estate from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 15,000, and funeral expenses from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 15,000. For the injured claimant, the High Court enhanced compensation for pain and suffering from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000, medical expenses from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 50,000, loss of income from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 20,000, and future medical expenses from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 30,000. The court directed the insurance company to pay the enhanced amounts with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation for Death - Multiplier Method - Loss of Dependency - The claimants, wife and mother of deceased, sought enhancement of compensation for death in a road accident. The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 13 instead of 18 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, and increased compensation for loss of dependency, loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. (Paras 5-10)
B) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation for Injuries - Pain and Suffering - Medical Expenses - The claimant, injured in the same accident, sought enhancement of compensation for injuries. The High Court held that the Tribunal's award of Rs. 50,000 for pain and suffering was inadequate and enhanced it to Rs. 1,00,000, and also enhanced compensation for medical expenses, loss of income, and future medical expenses. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in motor accident claims for death and injuries.
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced. The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
Law Points
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 173(1)
- Compensation for death
- Compensation for injuries
- Multiplier method
- Loss of dependency
- Pain and suffering
- Medical expenses
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (07) 44
MFA No.5861/2014 (MV) connected with MFA No.5862/2014 (MV) and MFA No.5863/2014 (MV)
N. Gopalkrishna (for appellants), O. Mahesh (for R-2 in MFA 5861/2014), B. C. Shivannegowda (for R-2 in MFA 5862/2014 and MFA 5863/2014)
Manju @ Manjunatha and Pavithra (in MFA 5861/2014), Thayamma (in MFA 5862/2014), Manju @ Manjunatha (in MFA 5863/2014)
Chandregowda and Branch Manager, Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeals under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against judgment and award of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Pandavapura in MVC Nos. 439/2012, 438/2012, and 440/2012.
Remedy Sought
Enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for death and injuries in a motor accident.
Filing Reason
Claimants were dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Previous Decisions
The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation of Rs. 6,50,000 for death and Rs. 1,50,000 for injuries.
Issues
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for death of Somachari is just and proper?
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for injuries sustained by Manju @ Manjunatha is just and proper?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the Tribunal applied wrong multiplier and failed to award adequate compensation for loss of dependency, consortium, and medical expenses.
Respondent insurance company argued that the award was just and proper and no interference was called for.
Ratio Decidendi
In motor accident claims, the multiplier should be applied as per the age of the deceased as per Sarla Verma v. DTC. Compensation for loss of dependency, consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses should be awarded as per established principles. For injuries, compensation for pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of income, and future medical expenses should be just and reasonable.
Judgment Excerpts
The Tribunal has taken the multiplier of 13 which is not correct. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case, the multiplier applicable to the age group of 46-50 is 13, but the deceased was aged 47 years, so the multiplier should be 13? Actually, the correct multiplier for age 47 is 13? Wait, the judgment says multiplier of 13 is not correct and should be 18? Let me check: The deceased was aged 47 years. As per Sarla Verma, multiplier for age 46-50 is 13. But the court says 'the Tribunal has taken the multiplier of 13 which is not correct' and then says 'the multiplier applicable to the age group of 46-50 is 13'? There is inconsistency. Actually, the judgment text is not fully provided. I will extract what is available.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-.
Procedural History
The claimants filed claim petitions before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Pandavapura in MVC Nos. 439/2012, 438/2012, and 440/2012. The Tribunal partly allowed the petitions and awarded compensation. Aggrieved, the claimants filed the present appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 173(1)
