1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
M.F.A. NO.1982 OF 2015 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KAMALA GOYAL
W/O LATE RADHE SHYAM GOYAL
AGED 51 YEARS.
2. MR. TARUN GOYAL
S/O LATE RADHE SHYAM GOYAL
AGED 34 YEARS.
3. MR. RITESH GOYAL
S/O LATE RADHE SHYAM GOYAL
AGED 23 YEARS.
R/AT. HOUSE NO.T85
MURALIWALA KUAN
SABJI MANDI, CLOCK TOWER
DELHI-7.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. GURUPRASAD B.R. ADV.,)
AND:
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE: BUNDER
VARANASI TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR
MISSION STREET, BUNDER
MANGALORE-575001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
2
2. MR. MAYANK RASTOGI
S/O RAKESH KUMAR RASTOGI
AGED 25 YEARS
R/O HOUSE NO.21C, DGA
BAHARUICH, LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH
PRESENTLY R/AT. K.M.C.
MENS HOSTEL, ROOM NO.216
B BLOCK, KAPRIGUDDA
MANGALORE-575002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. K.N. SRINIVASA, ADV., FOR R1
V/O DTD: 7-8-2015 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
---
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.04.2014 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1403/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MACT, MANGALORE, D.K. PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated 10.04.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
3
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 13.05.2011, the deceased Rupesh Goyal was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-10EC-7738. When he reached near Kuloor old bridge, the rider of the motorcycle who was riding the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle and they fell on the road. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.
3. The claimants 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 studying MBBS in Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle. 4 The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/- along with interest.
4. The insurance company filed written statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. The involvement of the offending motorcycle in the accident was also denied. It was also pleaded that the rider of the motorcycle did not hold a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and that the liability of the insurance company, if any, would be subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 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 No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and one Sudheendra Ramnath Pai was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P23. The respondents did not adduce any 5 oral evidence but 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 riding of the motorcycle by its rider. 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.8,40,000/- along with 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.10,000/- per month when it is clear that the deceased was a medical student studying in Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore and would have earned Rs.25,000/- per month at the least after graduation. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme 6 Court in ASHVINBHAI JAYANTILAL MODI VS. RAMKARAN RAMCHANDRA SHARMA AND ANOTHER (2015) 2 SCC 180. 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 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.10,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the amount of compensation 7 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. It is also not in dispute that deceased at the time of accident was aged about 20 years and was a student of second year MBBS course. The Supreme Court in ASHVINBHAI JAYANTILAL MODI SUPRA has assessed the income of student of first year MBBS course at Rs.25,000/- per month and has held that there is a tremendous increase in demand for medical professionals and that medical practice is one of the most rewarding profession today. Therefore, taking into consideration the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court in ASHVINBHAI 8 JAYANTILAL MODI SUPRA, we deem it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per month.
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.35,000/-. 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.17,500/-. 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.17,500x12x18) i.e., Rs.37,80,000/- on account of loss of dependency.
9. In view of laid down by the Supreme Court in 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU 9 RAM & ORS.' (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in 'UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR 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 claimants are held entitled to Rs.1,20,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.39,30,000/-. Since the accident is of the year 2011, the prevailing rate of interest for the year 2011 in respect of fixed deposits for one year in nationalized banks being 8%, the aforesaid amounts of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount of compensation. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified. 10
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE ss