Smt Parvathamma vs K S Niranjan
2021 Latest Caselaw 1917 Kant

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 19TH 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.411 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:

1.     SMT.PARVATHAMMA
       W/O GOVINDAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

2.     SHIVAMMA
       W/O GANGAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

3.     K.G.RANGAPPA
       S/O GOVINDAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NANDI HOSALLI
TARIKERE - TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
PIN - 577 549.
                                              ... APPELLANTS
(BY MR.SRIKANTH B., ADV.,)

AND:

1.     K.S.NIRANJAN
       AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
       RESIDING AT M/S: APMC BETEL NUT COMPANY
       #C-10, APMC YARD
       SHIVAMOGGA
                              2



     PIN - 577 201.

2.    THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
     UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
     SHIVAMANGALA BUILDING
     CHANNAGIRI ROAD
     BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA
     PIN - 577 201.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR.BHARATH S. FOR SRI.P.B.RAJU ADV. FOR R2
                  R1 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
                            ---

      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.07.2017 PASSED
IN MVC NO.103/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND PRINCIPAL JMFC., TARIKERE, 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 against the

judgment dated 05.07.2017 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the

claims tribunal' for short) seeking enhancement of

compensation.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that deceased Govindappa at about 2.45 p.m.

on 29.07.2015 after alighting in Hosahali Bus stand

started on foot towards his village. At that time, driver

of the car bearing registration No.KA:14/N-7629, which

was being driven in a rash and negligent manner came

from Lingadahalli and dashed against the deceased. As a

result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained

severe injuries and eventually succumbed to the same.

3. The legal representatives thereupon filed a

petition under Section 166 of the Act inter alia on the

ground that the accident has taken place solely on

account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending car. It was further pleaded that the deceased

at the time of accident was aged about 55 years and

was employed as a coolie. The claimants claimed

compensation to the tune of Rs.28,00,000/- along with

interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of

petition till its realization.

4. The respondent No.1 in the statement of

objections denied the averments made in the petition.

The respondent No.2 inter alia denied the factum of

accident and pleaded that the compensation claimed by

the claimants is excessive and exorbitant.

5. The Claims Tribunal on the basis of the

pleadings of the parties framed issues and recorded the

evidence. The claimants in order to prove their case

examined one Parvathamma and V.Omkarappa as PW1

and PW2 and exhibited 13 documents viz., Ex.P1 to

Ex.P13. The respondent did not adduce any oral

evidence and placed on record a copy of the insurance

policy, which was marked as Ex.R1. the Claims Tribunal

vide judgment 05.07.2017 inter alia held that the

accident took place solely on account of rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the car. It was further

held that the claimants are held entitled to

compensation of Rs.7,02,853/- along with interest at the

rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of deposit. In the aforesaid factual background, this

appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the tribunal grossly erred in taking monthly income

of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. It is further submitted

that the amount of award under the various heads is on

the lower side. On the other hand, learned counsel for

the Insurance Company submitted that the amount of

compensation awarded to the claimants 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 issue, which arises for consideration in

this appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation.

Admittedly, the claimants have not adduced any

evidence with regard to age of the deceased. Therefore,

the tribunal has rightly assessed the aged of the

deceased to be 65 years on the basis of post mortem

report. No evidence has been adduced by the claimants

with regard to income of the deceased. Therefore, his

income is assessed as per the guidelines framed by the

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident

has taken place in the year 2015, therefore, the income

of the deceased has to be assessed at Rs.9,000/- per

month.

8. Since, the number of dependents is 3,

therefore, 1/3rd of the amount has to be deducted

towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly

dependency comes to Rs.6,000/-. Taking into account

the age of the deceased which was 65 years at the time

of accident, the multiplier of '7' has to be adopted.

Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to

(Rs.6,000x12x7) i.e., Rs.5,04,000/- on account of loss

of dependency.

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

'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU

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 3070 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. The amount of

compensation awarded under the head 'medical

expenses' and 'conveyance, food and attendant charges'

is maintained. Thus, in all, the claimants are held

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,64,853/-.

Needless to state that the enhanced amount of

compensation viz., Rs.1,62,000/- shall carry interest at

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

petition till the payment is made. To the aforesaid

extent, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is

modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ss