Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident claim petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, S. Virupanna @ Virupanna, who died in a road accident on 22.05.2014. The deceased was a pedestrian crossing the road when he was hit by a Chevrolet vehicle bearing registration No.KA-50/2415. The claimants, wife and daughters, sought compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Ballari, awarded Rs.10,48,710/- with interest at 6% p.a., holding the driver and owner jointly liable, but fixed 25% contributory negligence on the deceased. The insurance company appealed against the award, and the claimants cross-appealed for enhancement. The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, considered both appeals. The court found that the Tribunal correctly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month based on Lok Adalat guidelines, applied multiplier 13 as per Sarla Verma, and added 30% towards future prospects. However, the court noted that the Tribunal failed to award compensation under conventional heads. The court reduced the compensation by 25% for contributory negligence and awarded Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads, resulting in a total compensation of Rs.8,47,600/-. The insurance company's appeal was partly allowed, and the claimants' appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Section 173(1) MV Act - The court held that the deceased, a pedestrian crossing the road, contributed to the accident by not being cautious, and thus 25% contributory negligence was justified. (Paras 10-12)
B) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Income Proof - The court held that in the absence of income proof, the notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month as per the Lok Adalat guidelines was correctly applied by the Tribunal. (Paras 13-15)
C) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier - The court held that the multiplier of 13 based on the age of the deceased (50 years) was correctly applied as per Sarla Verma v. DTC. (Para 16)
D) Motor Accident Claims - Future Prospects - The court held that 30% addition towards future prospects is permissible as per Pranay Sethi guidelines. (Para 17)
E) Motor Accident Claims - Conventional Heads - The court held that the Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation under conventional heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium, and awarded Rs.70,000/- under those heads. (Paras 18-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing contributory negligence and in awarding compensation; whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation.
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the insurance company's appeal and dismissed the claimants' appeal. The compensation was reduced from Rs.10,48,710/- to Rs.8,47,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The insurance company was directed to deposit the amount within six weeks.
Law Points
- Contributory negligence
- Motor Vehicle Act
- 1988
- Section 173(1)
- Compensation assessment
- Income proof
- Multiplier
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (01) 27
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.101587/2016 (MV) c/w Miscellaneous First Appeal No.103960/2016 (MV)
Sri. S. K. Kayakamath (for appellant in MFA 101587/2016 and for respondent in MFA 103960/2016); Sri. Manjunatha G. Patil (for respondents in MFA 101587/2016 and for appellants in MFA 103960/2016)
M/S Shreerama General Insurance Company Limited (in MFA 101587/2016); Smt. S. Thippamma @ Thippamma and others (in MFA 103960/2016)
Smt. S. Thippamma @ Thippamma and others (in MFA 101587/2016); G. Srinivas and others (in MFA 103960/2016)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Motor accident claim appeal and cross-appeal against award of compensation.
Remedy Sought
Insurance company sought reduction of compensation; claimants sought enhancement.
Filing Reason
Dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's award regarding contributory negligence and quantum of compensation.
Previous Decisions
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Ballari, in MVC No.905/2014 dated 06.02.2016, awarded Rs.10,48,710/- with interest at 6% p.a., fixing 25% contributory negligence on the deceased.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing 25% contributory negligence on the deceased?
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper?
Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation?
Submissions/Arguments
Insurance company argued that the deceased was negligent in crossing the road without care, and the Tribunal's finding of contributory negligence is correct; compensation is excessive.
Claimants argued that the deceased was not negligent; the driver was solely at fault; compensation should be enhanced by increasing income and adding future prospects and conventional heads.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the deceased contributed to the accident by not being cautious while crossing the road, justifying 25% contributory negligence. The Tribunal's assessment of income at Rs.6,000/- per month and multiplier 13 was correct. However, the Tribunal erred in not awarding conventional heads, which were added. The total compensation was recalculated accordingly.
Judgment Excerpts
The deceased was a pedestrian and he was crossing the road. He ought to have been cautious while crossing the road. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fixed 25% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
In the absence of any proof of income, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month as per the Lok Adalat guidelines. The same is just and proper.
The Tribunal has applied multiplier 13 based on the age of the deceased as per the decision in Sarla Verma's case. The same is correct.
As per the decision in Pranay Sethi's case, 30% of the income is to be added towards future prospects.
The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the conventional heads. The claimants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads.
Procedural History
The claimants filed MVC No.905/2014 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Ballari, which awarded compensation on 06.02.2016. The insurance company filed MFA No.101587/2016 challenging the award, and the claimants filed MFA No.103960/2016 seeking enhancement. Both appeals were heard together by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 173(1)
