Karnataka High Court
Smt. Laxmi @ Laxmidevi vs The Managing Director on 31 July, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30322
MFA No. 4225 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4225 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAXMI @ LAXMIDEVI
W/O LATE MANJUNATHA ALIAS MANJANNA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
2. SANJAY
S/O LATE MANJUNATHA @ MANJANNA
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
(MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER, THE 1ST APPELLANT)
BOTH ARE R/AT Y C PALYA SAMPIGE AT POST
DANDINA SHIVARA HOBLI
TURUVEKERE TQ, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572215
NOW R/AT NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE
CHANNAPPANAPALYA, UPPARAHALLI
SOMESHWARAPURAM, TUMAKUR 572101.
3. SMT LAKSHMAMMA
Digitally signed by W/O BYATEGOWDA
HEMALATHA A AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
Location: HIGH R/O CHOLASANDRA, KASABA HOBLI
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MELLAHALLI POST
NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571432
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR R V & .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
VRL LOGISTICS LTC
DESHMUK TRANSPORT NBAGAR
NEAR NEW PUNNE NAKA, N.H.9
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30322
MFA No. 4225 of 2018
KONDI VILLAGE, SOLAPUR DISTRICT
MAHARASHTRA 413255.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
1ST FLOOR, PB NO.54
JAYADEVA COMPLEX
B H ROAD, TUMKUR TOWN 5712101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ARAVIND M NEGLUR., ADVOCATE FOR R1:
SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.11.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.594/5015 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, TUMAKURU PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL 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 08.11.2017 passed by the Additional Civil Judge & C.J.M., Tumukur in MVC No.594/2015.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30322 MFA No. 4225 of 2018
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 24.04.2015, when the deceased- Manjunatha went to Haveri to unload materials. After the unloading, he was returning on 25.04.2015 to his Village through Chitradurga, via NH-04. At about 1.00 a.m., he reached near tiles factor of Burujanaroppa Village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chiradurga District. At that time, the deceased parked his vehicle to answer nature call and subsequently, he was checking the tires of the vehicle. At that point of time, the heavy goods vehicle lorry bearing registration No.MH-13-R-2922 came from Chitradurga side in high speed, rashly and negligently endangering the human life and personal safety of others and dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:30322 MFA No. 4225 of 2018
4. Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.
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 other two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. 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 a compensation of Rs.8,82,320/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to -5- NC: 2024:KHC:30322 MFA No. 4225 of 2018 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 assert that the deceased was approximately aged about 29 years at the time of the accident and had a monthly income of Rs.9,000/- as a driver. However, the assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.6,120/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.
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 cases the deceased was self-employed or received a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards 'future prospects' is warranted when the deceased was below the age of 40 years. This principle shall be considered in the present case. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:30322 MFA No. 4225 of 2018
c) Thirdly, 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 is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'.
d) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side.
With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter- contentions:
a) Firstly, although the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month, they failed to substantiate their claim with supporting documents.
Consequently, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:30322 MFA No. 4225 of 2018
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.
With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss 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 Manjunath died in the road traffic accident occurred on 24.04.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
10. The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month, but failed to produce supporting documents to substantiate their claim. In the absence of -8- NC: 2024:KHC:30322 MFA No. 4225 of 2018 proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2015, the notional income of the deceased shall be taken at Rs.9,000/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be 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.12,600/-. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Thus the monthly income of the claimant comes to Rs.8,400/-. The deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '17'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.17,13,600/- (Rs.8,400*12*17) 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 -9- NC: 2024:KHC:30322 MFA No. 4225 of 2018 'funeral expenses'. Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.
12. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE' (supra), claimant No.2, son of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of parental consortium' and claimant No.3, mother of the deceased is 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 17,13,600
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal consortium 40,000
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30322
MFA No. 4225 of 2018
Loss of Parental consortium 40,000
Loss of Filial consortium 40,000
Total 18,63,600
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.18,63,600/- as against Rs.8,82,320/- 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 a copy of this judgment.
e) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount shall be made in accordance with the terms of the award of the Tribunal.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30322 MFA No. 4225 of 2018
f) In view of the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period of 43 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 86