1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
MFA NO.424 of 2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMACHANDRA
S/O RAMASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
2. RAJAMMA
W/O RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT HINDITHAVALLI
VILLAGE, KELLUR POST
RAVANDUR HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA
TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAHESHA
S/O DORESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT 244, 6TH MAIN
SBI MAIN ROAD
HEBBAL, 1ST STAGE
MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT
2. SUNIL MASCARENHAS
S/O LIGOURY MASCARNEHAS
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
2
R/AT 5-2-73, A/12, GRADE
1ST CROSS, KOLMBE, UDUPI
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
ABOVE STATE BANK OF MYSORE
KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM
BALLAL CIRCLE, MYSURU - 570 004
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 21.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.954/2016
ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MYSURU AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT,
MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 21.08.2018 passed in MVC No.954/2016 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru (for short 'the Tribunal'), the petitioners therein have preferred this appeal.
3
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 as follows:
That on 08.07.2016, at about 1.45 p.m., the son of the petitioners by name H.R.Gopala as a pillion rider along with his relative was proceeding towards Mysuru in order to attend their masonry work on a motorbike bearing registration No.KA-42/U-3592. When they reached Indian Oil petrol bunk at Yelavala on Mysuru Hunsur main road, a Car bearing registration No.KA-02/ MA-9368 being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed against their motorbike. Due to the said accident, the said H.R.Gopala sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the same.
4. Respondent no.1 is the driver of the Car, respondent no.2 is the owner and respondent no.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
5. After service of notice, respondent nos.1 and 3 have appeared through their respective counsel, filed 4 their objections and have contested the petition before the Tribunal. They have denied their liability and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. Respondent no.2 was placed ex parte.
6. The petitioners, to prove the case, examined one witness and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. The respondents did not examine any witness but got marked the insurance policy as Ex.R1.
7. Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.14,30,800/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization in favour of the petitioners. Not satisfied by the same, the petitioners have preferred this appeal.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. The case of the petitioners is that the compensation that has been awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is on the lower side and has sought for enhancement of compensation. 5
10. Per contra, respondent no.3 has justified the order passed by the Tribunal and has sought for dismissal of the appeal.
11. The factum of accident, negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Car and the death of the son of the petitioners is not in dispute. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is justified and reasonable?
12. The accident happened in the year 2016. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 23 years. Though it is claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month at the time of the accident, no materials have been produced to show his income. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-. We find the same to be on the lower side. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in consultation with the Insurance Companies, the notional income in the 6 absence of proof of income for the year 2016 is fixed at Rs.9,500/- per month. Given the age of the deceased as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% has to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased was a Bachelor, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Given his age, a multiplier of 18 has to be adopted. Thus, on the count of loss of dependency, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.14,36,400/- [Rs.9,500/- + 40% X 12 X 18 X 1/2].
13. The petitioners being parents of the deceased, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Somwati [(2020)9 SCC 644], they are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Thus, they are totally entitled to Rs.80,000/- towards loss of consortium.
14. The petitioners are also entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral 7 expenses. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,46,400/- as against Rs.14,30,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
15. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.15,46,400/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand and Four Hundred Only) as against Rs.14,30,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of the claim petition till its realization.
iii) The insurance company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date 8 of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.
iv) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact.
v) The modified compensation amount shall be apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.
vi) Draw modified award accordingly.
vii) All pending I.As. stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE hkh.