Karnataka High Court
Devamma vs Alla Lakshmi Kantha Reddy on 13 December, 2023
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45391
MFA No. 1197 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1197 OF 2021 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. DEVAMMA
W/O HANUMANTHABHOVI @
HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
HOUSE HOLD WORK.
2. HANUMANTHABHOVI
@ HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O CHANDRABHOVI AGRICULTURIST
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
3. SHYLAJA
D/O HANUMANTHABHOVI
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
Digitally signed STUDENT
by
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY 4. SUDHA
Location: High D/O HANUMANTHABHOVI
Court of
Karnataka @ HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
STUDENT
ALL ARE R/O JSR BOVIHATTY VILLAGE
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH N D., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45391
MFA No. 1197 of 2021
AND:
1. ALLA LAKSHMI KANTHA REDDY
S/O VEERA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O FLAT NO.201 2ND LINE
NEAR OLD RTO OFFICE
PATTBIPURAM GUNTUR DISTRICT
ANDRA PRADESH -522006.
2. THE MANGER LEGAL
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REG OFFICE-200-2008
CRYSTAL PLAZA OPP INTINITY MAIL
LINK ROAD ANDHERI (WEST)
MUMBAI-400058
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 14.05.2020,
PASSED IN MVC NO.573/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AND MACT, HOSADURGA, 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:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:45391
MFA No. 1197 of 2021
JUDGMENT
1. 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 being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 14.5.2020 passed by the MACT, Hosadurga in MVC 573/2019.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 18.7.2019, when the deceased Sudeep was riding the motorcycle bearing registration NO.KA-16- EG-6553 near Dasayyanahatti Cross near Sheeranakatte Majire on Hosadurga-Hiriyur road, at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.AP-07-TH-7457 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:45391 MFA No. 1197 of 2021
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.
4. On service of summons, the respondents appeared through counsel and filed written statements in which the averments made in the claim petition were denied.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove the case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to -5- NC: 2023:KHC:45391 MFA No. 1197 of 2021 a compensation of Rs.14,15,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:
a) Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by working as Coolie.
But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.9,000/-.
b) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards 'future prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The same has been rightly considered by the Tribunal. -6-
NC: 2023:KHC:45391 MFA No. 1197 of 2021
c) Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'.
d) Fourthly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782], each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'.
e) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter- contentions:
a) Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, the same is -7- NC: 2023:KHC:45391 MFA No. 1197 of 2021 not established by the claimants by producing documents.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards 'future prospects'.
c) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that Sudeep died in the road traffic accident occurred on 18.7.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. -8-
NC: 2023:KHC:45391 MFA No. 1197 of 2021
10. The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. But they have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2019, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.14,000/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 40% has been rightly added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 'PRANAY SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.19,600/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.21,16,800/- -9-
NC: 2023:KHC:45391 MFA No. 1197 of 2021 (Rs.19,600*12*18*50%) on account of 'loss of dependency'.
11. In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'.
12. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE' (supra), claimants Nos.1 and 2, parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'loss of filial consortium'.
13. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 21,16,800
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of Filial consortium 80,000
Total 22,26,800
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45391
MFA No. 1197 of 2021
14. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.22,26,800/- as against Rs.14,15,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.
d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
e) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE DM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 57