1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3612 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JAYANTHI
W/O. LATE KORAGAPPA MOOLYA,
AGED 54 YEARS
2. MR. DEVADAS
S/O. LATE KORAGAPPA MOOLYA,
AGED 33 YEARS
3. MISS. PADMAKSHI
D/O. LATE KORAGAPPA MOOLYA,
AGED 24 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT D.NO.1-119,
KUMDEL HOUSE,
PADU VILLAGE & POST,
FARANGIPET, BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT, PIN-574 219.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC, CHICKMANGALORE DIVISION,
CHICKMANGALORE, PIN-577101. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
05.05.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1743/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND II ADDL.
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANGALORE (DK),
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned I Additional District Judge and II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangalore (DK) (henceforth referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.1743/2014.
2. Appellants herein will henceforth be referred to as 'claimants' and the respondent herein will henceforth be referred to as the 'owner and internal insurer' of the offending vehicle involved in the accident. 3
3. The claim petition discloses that the claimants are the wife and children of Korgappa Moolya. It is stated that on 17.09.2014 at about 2:00 p.m., Korgappa Moolya was walking by the side of Farangipet road near Pudu village in order to go to super bazar and at that time, a bus bearing registration No.KA-18-F-492 (henceforth referred to as the 'offending vehicle') was driven negligently from the opposite direction and dashed against the deceased Korgappa Moolya. As a result, he sustained injuries and he was shifted to Father Muller hospital, Thumbay, Bantwal and thereafter to Government Wenlock District hospital, Mangalore, where he was declared brought dead. Claimants, therefore, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the owner and internal insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. The claim petition was contested by the owner of the offending vehicle denying the averments of the 4 claim petition as well as the negligence attributed to the driver of the offending vehicle.
5. Claimant No.2 was examined as PW.1 and he marked documents Exs.P1 to P14 while the driver of the offending vehicle was examined as RW.1 and he marked Ex.R1.
6. The Tribunal held that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident, which was evident from Exs.P2, P5, P6 and P7 as well as P8. It, therefore, answered issue No.1 framed by it against the driver of the offending vehicle and held that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident. In so far as the claim for compensation is concerned, the Tribunal noticed that claimants did not have any proof of income of the deceased. The Tribunal therefore considered the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month and granted 15% of the actual income as the loss of future prospects and considered the income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.8,050/- per month 5 and deducted 1/3rd of the same towards the personal expenses of the deceased and awarded the following compensation:
Sl. Heads under which Amount
No. compensation is awarded (in Rupees)
1. Loss of dependency 7,08,400/-
(Rs.8050x12x2/3x11)
2. Loss of consortium 50,000/-
3. Loss of estate 25,000/-
4. Funeral and obsequies 25,000/-
expenses
5. Medical & Misc. expenses 15,000/-
TOTAL 8,23,400/-
7. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal and contend that the Tribunal was not justified in considering the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month, but it must have considered the notional income at a sum of Rs.8,500/- per month as done by this Court in cases referred to mediation / Lok Adalat for settlement. He also contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded loss of future prospects at 6 the rate of 10%. Further, learned counsel sought for compensation towards loss of filial consortium to claimant No.1 and compensation towards loss of filial love and affection to claimant Nos.2 and 3 in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the owner / internal insurer of the offending vehicle contended that the Tribunal was justified in considering the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month. He contended that as against the loss of future prospects which must have been at the rate of 10% as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the Tribunal had considered the same at 15% and therefore, submits that the award may not be disturbed. In so far as the loss of filial consortium is concerned, learned counsel submitted 7 that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi did not provide for grant of compensation towards loss of filial consortium.
9. I have heard learned counsel for claimants and learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle and perused the records of the Tribunal.
10. The Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month and had awarded 15% of the actual income as the loss of future prospects. As a matter of fact, this Court has considered a sum of Rs.8,500/- as the notional income of the persons, who die or are injured in road traffic accidents in the year 2014 and who do not have proof of income. Thus, in order to maintain uniformity, it is appropriate to consider the income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.8,500/- per month and the loss of future prospects at 10% of the actual income. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased would be Rs.9350/- of which 1/3rd is liable to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased 8 as held by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi. The claimant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to loss of filial consortium in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Satinder Kaur (referred supra). Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be recalculated as follows:
Sl. Heads under which Amount
No. compensation is awarded (in Rupees)
1 Loss of dependency 8,22,756/-
(Rs.8500 + 10% = Rs.9350/-)
(Rs.9350/- - 3117/- = Rs.6233/-)
(Rs.6233 x 12 x 11)
2 Loss of consortium in respect 40,000/-
of claimant No.1
3 Loss of parental consortium 80,000/-
to claimant Nos.2 and 3
4 Funeral expenses 15,000/-
5 Loss of estate 15,000/-
6 Medical expenses, 15,000/-
transportation expenses
Total 9,87,756/-
11. Hence, the appeal filed by claimants is
allowed in part and in modification of the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal, the compensation of Rs.8,23,400/- awarded to claimants is enhanced to a sum of Rs.9,87,756/-. The respondent / owner and internal insurer of the offending vehicle which 9 had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- in terms of Exs.R2 and R3 is entitled to deduct the same from the compensation payable to claimants.
Consequently, the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay a sum of Rs.9,37,756/- to claimants in the same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The respondent - insurer is directed to deposit the compensation within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the Judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma