1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
M.F.A. NO.5434 OF 2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SMT. GEETHA W/O RAMAMURTHI .H
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/O NEAR VIDYARTHI BHAVAN
KEB QUARTERS
DAVANAGERE-577002.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SANTHOSH .N S/O NAGARAJ T.H.
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
DRIVER OF HERO HONDA SPLENDOR
BEARING REG NO.KA-17/W-6419
R/O D.NO.104, LENIN NAGAR
DAVANAGERE-577001.
2. RAMAMURTHY .H
LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABUT 38 YEARS
DRIVER OF HERO HONDA SPLENDOR
BEARING REG NO.KA-17/W-6419
R/O NEAR VIDYARTHI BHAVAN
KEB QUARTERS
DAVANAGERE-577002.
2
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE: 34/3
M.M.M. COMPLEX
AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD
P.J. EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE-577001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. RAVISH BENNI, ADV., FOR R3)
---
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.03.2016 PASSED
IN MVC NO.181/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & 5TH MACT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 08.05.2014, the deceased Sunilkumar was proceeding as a pillion rider on Hero Honda 3 Splendor bearing registration No.KA-17/W-6419 belonging to respondent No.1. When they reached near Inchara house, S.S.Hospital, Jayanagar, Davanagere City, the rider of the vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the road side tree. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.
3. The claimant thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and was working as a private dance teacher and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the aforesaid vehicle. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest.
4. The insurance company filed written statement, in which the mode and manner of the 4 accident was denied. It was pleaded that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation on account of delay of a day caused in filing the complaint by the claimant. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant examined herself as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The respondents examined one Mallikarjuna M.H. as RW-1 and got exhibited one document namely Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle. It was further held, that as a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,03,000/- along with 5 interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month and in any case, the same ought to have been taken as per the guidelines framed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not making an addition to the tune of 40% to the income of the deceased on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 'NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS' AIR 2017 SC 5157. It is further submitted that the sums awarded under the heads 'loss of consortium' and 'funeral expenses' are on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that no 6 evidence has been adduced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.4,500/- per month. It is further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased is to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. Since the accident is of the year 2014, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.8,500/- p.m. 7
8. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 'NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS' AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% of the amount has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.11,900/-. Since, the deceased was a bachelor, therefore, 50% of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.5,950/- Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 20 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of '18' has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to (Rs.5,950x12x18) i.e., Rs.12,85,200/- on account of loss of dependency.
9. In view of laid down by the Supreme Court in 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & ORS.' (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in 'UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR 8 AND ORS.' IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 DECIDED ON 30.06.2020 each of the claimant's are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss love and affection. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.40,000/-. In addition, claimant is held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimant is held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.13,55,200/-. Needless to state that the aforesaid compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE ss