IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
MFA NO.3089 OF 2018 (MV)
C/W
MFA CROB NO.105 OF 2019
IN MFA NO.3089 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
HASSAN BRANCH
MANJUNATHAESHWARA COMPLEX
BUS STAND ROAD, HASSAN
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
# 144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001
REP. BY ITS ADM. OFFICER
SMT. C. K. PARIMALA ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SEETHARAMA RAO B. C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
W/O LATE D. G. NAVEEN
2. KUM. AMRUTHA
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS
SINCE MINOR
REP. BY HER MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN, THE
FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN
2
3. SRI. GANGADHARE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O DODDASIDDEGOWDA
4. SMT. SUNDARAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O SRI. GANGADHARE GOWDA
ALL ARE R/AT DEVAGONDAHALLI
VILLAGE, LAKYA HOBLI
CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK-575 125
5. SRI. MAHESH
MAJOR IN AGE
S/O BASAVARAJU
R/O BHOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE
HASSAN TALUK ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. R. LINGARAJU, ADV. FOR R1, R3 AND R4;
R2 IS MINOR REP. BY R1; R5 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 03.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.396/2016
ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.17,85,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 9% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
IN MFA CROB NO.105 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE D. G. NAVEEN
HOUSEWIFE
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
2. BABY AMRUTHA
AGED ABOUT 4½ YEARS
3
SINCE MINOR, REP. BY
HER MOHTER NATURAL
GUARDIAN CROSS
OBJECTOR NO.1
3. SRI. GANGADHAREGOWDA
S/O DODDASIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
4. SMT. SUNDARAMMA
W/O GANGADHAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT DEVAGONDAHALLI
VILLAGE AND POST, LAKYA HOBLI
CHIKKAMAGLUR TALUK
... CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI.K. R. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MAHESH
S/O BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT BHOOVANAHALLI VILLAGE
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
HASSAN BRANCH
MANJUNATHESHWARA COMPLEX
BUS STAND ROAD, HASSAN
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.3089 OF 2018 IS FILED
UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC READ WITH SECTION
173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 03.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.396/2016 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MEMBER,
MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
4
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MFA AND MFA CROB. ARE COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 03.11.2017 passed in MVC No.396/2016 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Member, MACT, Chikkamagaluru (for short 'the Tribunal'), respondent no.2-Insurance Company has preferred MFA No.3089/2018 and the petitioners therein have preferred MFA.CROB.105/2019.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 08/09.02.2015, at about 12.00 in the midnight, the deceased D.G.Naveen was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA 18 U 5762 as a pillion rider along with one Kavyananda at Devagondanahalli village. They stopped the vehicle by the side of the road and were talking with one Yogeesha. At that time, a Car bearing No.KA 18 M 9727 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent 5 no.1 came and dashed against the motorcycle because of which the deceased Naveen sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. The petitioners are the wife, daughter, father and mother of the deceased Naveen. They preferred MVC No.396/2016 before the Tribunal.
4. Respondent no.1 is the driver and owner of the offending car. Respondent no.2 is the Insurance Company. After service of notice, both the respondents have appeared before the Tribunal, filed the written statements and denied the liability. To prove the case, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners and they got marked Exs.P1 to P16. The respondents examined one witness and got marked Exs.R1 to R5.
5. Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.17,85,000/- to the petitioners along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the same, respondent no.2-Insurance Company has preferred MFA No.3089/2018 and the petitioners have preferred MFA.CROB.105/2019.
6
6. Respondent no.2-Insurance Company has appealed on the grounds that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased by ignoring the fact that the father of the deceased being able bodied agriculturist is not a dependent and it ought to have taken 2/3rd of the income of the deceased towards loss of dependency. It is also contended that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads are also on the higher side and also the interest of 9% p.a. is on the higher side.
7. Per contra, the petitioners have contended that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased on the lower side and have sought for enhancement of the compensation.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. The copy of the charge sheet and mahazar shows that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the offending Car. Insofar as the contention of the Insurance Company 7 that the father of the deceased who is petitioner No.3 is not a dependent, we are in agreement with the same and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses as against 1/4th. In respect of conventional heads, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal in fact has erred in not awarding the amounts as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Somwati [(2020)9 SCC 644].
10. The accident occurred in the year 2015. The deceased was aged 27 years at the time of the accident. He was an agriculturist. No proof of income is provided by the petitioners. Thus, the Tribunal has taken his income notionally at Rs.8,000/- per month. It is noticed that as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in consultation with the Insurance Companies, the notional income in the absence of proof of income is fixed at Rs.9,000/- per month for the accident happened in the year 2015. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects. The age of the 8 deceased being 27 years at the time of the accident as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. D.T.C [2009(6) SCC 121], a multiplier of 17 has to be adopted. Further, as there are three dependents of the deceased, 1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the petitioners would be entitled to a sum of Rs.17,13,600/- on the count of loss of dependency [Rs.9,000/- + 40% = Rs.12,600/- X 12 X 17 X 2/3rd].
11. Under the conventional heads, the petitioners being wife, daughter, father and mother, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Somwati [(2020)9 SCC 644]. Thus, together they are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.19,03,600/- as against Rs.17,85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
9
12. Awarding of interest being discretionary, the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest per annum on the compensation. We deem it not appropriate to interfere in the discretion exercised by the Tribunal. However, presently there is a fall in the interest rates awarded by banks and we deem it appropriate to award interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation.
13. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) MFA No.3089 of 2018 and MFA CROB.105 of 2019 are allowed in part.
ii) The total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified and enhanced to
Rs.19,03,600/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Three Thousand and Six Hundred only) as against Rs.17,85,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.
iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact. 10
iv) The insurance company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.
v) The modified compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.
vi) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE hkh.