1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
M.F.A. NO.3990 OF 2016 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. Y.J.GANGE GOWDA
S/O JAYARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
2. BHARATHI
W/O Y.J.GANGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF
YELECHAGERE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN - 562 123
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. R.LAKSHMANA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE MUDDEGOWDA
R/AT MUDDEGOWDARA THOTA
ALUR POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU - 562 123
2. M/S.BHARTI AXA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD.
BY ITS MANAGER
1ST FLOOR, FERNS ICON
SURVEY NO.28
DODDANEKUNDI VILLAGE
2
K.R.PURAM HOBLI
BENGALURU - 37.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R.2;
R.1- SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.11.2014 PASSED IN
MVC NO.1381/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, 26TH ACMM (SCCH-09), BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 14.11.2014 passed in MVC No.1381/2012 on the file of the Small Causes & MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-9) (hereinafter for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. Facts leading up to filing of the aforesaid appeal are that ON 19.01.2013, G. Yuvaraj, aged about 18 years studying in II PUC was going as a pillion rider in motorbike bearing registration No.KA-41-X-1950 on Magadi-Bengaluru road, when he reached near Ramanathapura at 3.30 p.m., the rider of the SAID motorbike namely Sunil Kumar lost 3 control of the same resulting in the accident. Due to impact, G. Yuvaraj, sustained fatal injuries and died on the way to hospital. Thereupon, the appellants/claimants being the parents of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.20 lakhs on the premise that the deceased was a student and his death occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the offending motorbike. The untimely death of the deceased had caused severe emotional and financial distress to the claimants. Hence, claimants filed claim petition.
3. Upon service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal filed statement of objections. Respondent No.1 contended that the bike was insured with the insurance company and the same was in force as on the date of accident. However, it is denied that the accident in question had occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of the offending motorbike. Respondent No.2 contended taht the rider of the bike did not have valid driving licence and that there was violation of Policy conditions by the owner of the bike. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition 4
4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Further claimant No.1 examined himself as PW.1 and exhibited 11 documents, marked as Exs.P1 to P.11. No evidence has been led in on behalf of the respondents.
5. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that accident in question resulting death of the deceased had occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of the motor bike by its rider. Consequently, held claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of accident till realization and since the vehicle was insured by respondent No.2, respondent No.2 directed to pay compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memo submitted that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on very lower side. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under "Future prospects" and also under "Conventional heads" as 5 laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram and Others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, Hence, seeks for enhancement of compensation.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company justifying the award passed by the Tribunal submitted that there is no grounds made out by the appellants/claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation. No proof of income of the deceased has been furnished as he was just a student and therefore, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, warranting no interference. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. On thoughtful consideration of the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point would arise for consideration is: 6
Whether the claimants have made out a case for enhancement of compensation?
10. The accident in question involving motorcycle resulting in Yuvaraj sustaining fatal injuries and consequent death is not disputed. Though the appellants/claimants have sought for compensation of Rs.20 lakhs, no evidence with regard to any income being earned by the deceased is furnished. The Tribunal relying upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KISHAN GOPAL AND OTHERS vs. LALA AND OTHERS (2013 ACJ 2594), has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- p.m., and has further adopted the age of the younger parent of the deceased for applying the multiplier of 15. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and under loss of consortium.
11. In the instant case, the deceased was aged about 18 years. The age limit for the purpose of applying appropriate multiplier is 15 and above. Therefore, reliance placed on by the Tribunal on Krishan Gopal Case (supra) for arriving notional income and taking the age of younger parent for applying multiplier is inappropriate. 7
12. This Court in the absence of any evidence with regard to income of the victim in road traffic accident takes into consideration the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per the chart, the notional income in respect of the victims of road traffic accident of the year 2013 is fixed at Rs.8,000/- per month and the same is taken as notional income of the deceased in the instant case as well. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), since the age of the deceased was below 40 years, 40% added towards "Future prospects". Since the deceased is bachelor, 50% of the income should be deducted towards his personal expenses (Rs.8,000 + 40% = Rs.11,200/-, Rs.11,200/2=Rs.5,600/-). Considering the age of the deceased, proper multiplier 18 is taken into consideration. Calculating as above, "Loss of dependency would be Rs.5,600x12x18 = Rs.12,09,600/-. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS [2018) 18 SCC 130] which clarified in the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UNITED INDIA 8 INSURANCE CO. LTD., VS. SATINDER KAUR @ SATWINDER KAUR & ORS. [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 410], the claimants being the parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards "Loss of consortium". In addition, the appellants/claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Hence, the appellants/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.13,19,600/- as follows:
Heads By Tribunal By this Court Loss of dependency Rs.4,50,000/- Rs.12,09,600/- Towards Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- transportation of dead body, Funeral expenses & obsequies ceremony Loss of consortium Rs.15,000/- Rs.80,000/- (40,000x2) Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.4,90,000/- Rs.13,19,600/-
13. Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.13,19,600/- instead of Rs.4,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% per annum and therefore the point raised above is answered accordingly. Hence, the following order is passed: 9
ORDER i. The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.1381/2013 is modified.
ii. The appellants/claimants are entitled
for enhanced compensation of
Rs.13,19,600/- instead of Rs.4,90,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal together with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization.
iii. The respondent No.2 - insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of eight weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE nms