IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
M.F.A.No.2701/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN :
1. SMT.SHOBHA
W/O LATE M.CHIDANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
2. DEEKSHITH
S/O LATE M.CHIDANANDA,
6 YEARS, MINOR REP. BY HIS
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
SMT.SHOBHA i.e., 1ST APPELLANT.
R/O UDDEBORANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NOW R/AT BALLIGANUR,
BIRURU HOBLI, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577548. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI R.C.NAGARAJ, ADV.)
AND :
1. Y.G.BASAVARAJU
S/O GOVINDAPPA, 40 YEARS,
R/O YAREHALLI VILLAGE,
BIRURU POST, BIRURU HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK,
CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577548.
-2-
2. MANJUNATH K.S.,
S/O SOMAIAH, 45 YEARS,
R/O MALIYAMMA BEEDHI,
DODDAPPETE, KADUR TOWN,
CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577548.
3. IFFCO-TOKYO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
MYSORE-570006,
REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER.
4. M.K.PRAVEENKUMAR
S/O KRISHNEGOWDA, 35 YEARS,
VEGETABLE MERCHANT,
R/O MANJUNATH SCHOOL ROAD,
HOUSING BOARD,
CHIKMAGALURU TOWN-577548.
5. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CHIKMAGALURU TOWN-577548
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MURALIDHAR NEGAVAR, ADV. FOR R-3;
SRI C.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R-5;
R-1, R-2 & R-4 ARE SERVED.)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
01.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.58/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 01.09.2018 passed in MVC No.58/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Kadur, Chikkamangaluru District ('Tribunal' for short).
2. The claimants instituted the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of M. Chidananda in the road traffic accident.
3. It was averred in the claim petition that on 04.04.2012 while the deceased - M. Chidananda and U.V. Kusha were proceeding in the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-18-L-8042 towards Halebeedu, met with the road traffic accident owing to the rash and negligence of the driver of the tractor bearing registration No.KA-18-TA-1193 (offending vehicle) which was negligently parked in the middle of the road without -4- any signal due to which the deceased - M. Chidananda sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
4. It was contended that the deceased was an agriculturist and earning Rs.39,000/- per annum. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants are suffering from mental agony besides loss of dependency and love and affection. On these set of facts, the claimants sought for the compensation.
5. In response to the notice, respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 appeared and respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 have filed separate objection statements. Respondent No.4 having not appeared before the Tribunal, was placed ex-parte.
6. The defence set up by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are that the respondent No.1, driver of the tractor-trailer has parked the said vehicle on the left side of the road with signal and indication since the left -5- side wheel of the trailer was punctured. The deceased - M. Chidananda has ridden the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed and dashed to the left side of the trailer which was parked by the side of the road. There was no negligence on the part of the said respondent.
7. The respondent No.3 has contended that the respondent No.1 did not possess valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. The respondent No.2 has handed over the possession of the vehicle to the said driver. The compensation claimed is exorbitant. Accordingly, both of them sought for the dismissal of the petition.
8. Respondent No.5 - insurance company admitting the issuance of the policy to the vehicle denied the averments of the petition in toto. The main defence set up was that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the respondent No.1 who had no -6- valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. The respondent No.4 voluntarily permitted the deceased - M. Chidananda to drive the motor cycle knowing fully well that he was not holding the driving licence, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Accordingly, sought for the dismissal of the claim petition.
9. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and answered as per the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment partly allowing the claim petition awarding compensation amount of Rs.9,01,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the petition till its realisation.
10. This matter was clubbed with MVC No.33/2013 filed by the injured who was a pillion rider and a common judgment has been passed by the Tribunal.
-7-
11. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the Tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation which under any stretch of imagination cannot be considered as just and proper. The Tribunal has failed to award future prospects. The determination of income made at Rs.6,000/- per month is on the lower side. Further, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also meager. On these set of grounds, learned counsel sought for enhancement of the compensation.
13. Learned counsel for the insurers of the vehicles submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and there is no scope for further enhancement. Accordingly, sought for the dismissal of -8- the appeal confirming the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
14. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record.
15. The controversy involved in this appeal is only inasmuch as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is discernable that the deceased was aged about 30 years and was working as an agriculturist. In the absence of proof of income, this Court is consistently referring to the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority to determine the income of the victim of the road traffic accident, notionally. Having regard to the same, the monthly income of the deceased could be easily determined at Rs.7,000/-. Adding 40% towards the -9- future prospects, the total income would be Rs.9,800/- (7,000 + 2,800). Applying the multiplier of '17', deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs.13,32,800/- (9,800 x 12 x 17 x 2/3).
16. In terms of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 and New India Assurance Company Limited v/s. Somwati and others reported in 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 720, the claimants - widow and the child of the deceased - M. Chidananda are entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium; Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
- 10 -
17. For the reasons aforesaid, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed as under:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount [in Rs.]
1. Loss of dependency 13,32,800/-
Loss of spousal
2. 40,000/-
consortium
Loss of parental
3. 40,000/-
consortium
4. Loss of estate 15,000/-
Towards funeral
5. 15,000/-
expenses
Total 14,42,800/-
Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.14,42,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.
18. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to
- 11 -
Rs.14,42,800/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Eight Hundred only) as against Rs.9,01,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount 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.
iv) The respondent Nos.3 and 5 - insurance companies 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.
- 12 -
vii) All pending I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE PMR