Chandraiah vs The Depot Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 1875 Kant

                               1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                              AND

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

               M.F.A. NO.810 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:

1.     CHANDRAIAH
       S/O LATE SHIVANANJAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

2.     P.C. NALINA
       W/O CHANDRAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

       BOTH ARE R/AT. MELEHALLI VILLAGE
       KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK-572101.
                                              ... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. SHANTHARAJ K, ADV.,)

AND:

THE DEPOT MANAGER
K.S.R.T.C.
TUMAKURU DIVISION
TUMAKURU-572101.
                                           ... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. K. NAGARAJA, ADV.,)

                              ---

     THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2014 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1145/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE
                             2



AND MEMBER MACT, TUMKUR, 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 03.02.2014 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 27.08.2012, the deceased

Lakshmankumar was traveling in a Karnataka State

Road Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration

No.KA-06-F-298 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

offending vehicle' for short). When the offending vehicle

reached near Jai Public School, Uruvekere, Tumkur, the

same was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner, due to which the deceased fell down from the

offending vehicle. As a result of the aforesaid accident,

the deceased sustained 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 25 years

at the time of accident and was employed as an

executive at ANZ Company, Bangalore and was earning

a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. It was further pleaded

that accident took place solely on account of rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of

Rs.80,00,000/- along with interest.

4. The Karnataka State Road Transport

Corporation filed written statement, in which the mode

and manner of the accident was denied. It was pleaded

that the accident occurred on account of the negligence

of the deceased himself. 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

himself as PW-1, Mallikarjunaiah (PW2) and got

exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P26. The

respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor any

documentary evidence. 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. 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.7,09,200/- 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 grossly erred in assessing the income

of the deceased at Rs.8,900/- per month when Ex.P5 to

Ex.P21 Marksheets of the deceased as well as Ex.P24

Appointment Letter clearly indicate that the deceased

had the potential to earn Rs.1,00,000 per month. It is

further submitted that the Tribunal 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.8,900/- per

month. It is further submitted that the amount of

compensation 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. It is the specific case of the

claimants that the deceased was 25 years old at the

time of the accident and was employed as an executive

at ANZ Company, Bangalore and was earning

Rs.20,000/- per month. Ex.P5 to Ex.P21 are the mark

sheets issued to the deceased for the various

educational courses undertaken by him, which do not

constitute proof of income. It is evident that except for

Ex.P24 Appointment Letter, the claimants have not

adduced any evidence with regard to the income of the

deceased at the time of accident. The submission of the

learned counsel for the claimants that the income of the

deceased has to be assessed at Rs.1,00,000/- per

month cannot be accepted, as the same is contrary to

the pleadings as well as the evidence on record. The

Tribunal, on meticulous appreciation of all evidence on

record has assessed the income of the claimant at

Rs.8,900 per month, on the basis of Ex.P24

Appointment Letter which has been adduced by the

claimants. Therefore, no interference can be made in

this regard as the same is just and reasonable.

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.12,460/-. Since, the

deceased is a bachelor, therefore, half of the amount

has to be deducted towards personal expenses and

therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.6,230/-

. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was

24 years 3 months at the time of accident, the multiplier

of '18' has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are

held entitled to (Rs.8,438x12x18) i.e., Rs.13,45,680/-

on account of loss of dependency.

9. In view of laid down by the Supreme Court in

'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU

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.' AIR 2020 SC 3076 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.80,000/-. 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.14,55,680/-. Needless to state that the enhanced

amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate

of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition

till the payment is made. However, it is made clear that

the claimants are not entitled to interest for a period of

1359 days on account of delay caused in filing the

instant appeal. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment

passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ss