Karnataka High Court
Sri Riyaz Pasha vs The United India Insurance Co Ltd on 1 December, 2021
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.4179 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Riyaz Pasha,
S/o Abdul Karim,
Aged about 60 years.
2. Smt. Zamrud,
W/o Riyaz Pasha,
Aged about 57 years.
Both are Residing at
No.66, Kanakapura Main Road,
Gandhinagar, Kaggalipura,
Bengaluru South,
Bengaluru-560 082. ... Appellants
(By Sri. Harish N.R., Advocate)
AND:
1. The United India Insurance Co. ltd.,
Regional Office,
No. 1872, 20th Main,
Marenahalli Main Road,
Vijayanagara
Bengaluru-560 040.
2. Sri. Shekar K.H.,
S/o Vannappa,
2
Major,
R/o Kaggalahalli Village and Post,
Harohalli Hobli,
Ramanagara District-562 109. ... Respondents
(By Sri. Mohan Kumar T., Advocate for R1:
Notice to R2 is D/w
v/o dated: 01.12.2021)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:30.03.2019 passed
in MVC No.790/2018 on the file of the 7th Additional
Small Causes Judge & XXXII ACMM, Member, MACT-3,
Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA, coming on for orders, this day, this Court,
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 being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.03.2019 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in
MVC No.790/2018.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 23.12.2017 the deceased
Taushiph Pasha was proceeding in an autorickshaw
bearing registration No.KA-02/AC-6370 from
Guddadahalli, Bengaluru towards Gandhinagar,
Kaggalipura. At that time, when they reached near
Pattareddypalya a lorry bearing registration No.KA-
52/6147 which was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed against the autorickshaw.
As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the
injuries at the hospital.
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 respondent
Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed
separate written statements in which the averments
made in the petition were denied. The age,
occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It
was pleaded that the quantum of compensation
claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, they
sought for dismissal of the 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 their case, examined two witnesses as PW-1
and PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1
to Ex.P15. On behalf of respondents, two witnesses
were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and got exhibited
documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R.3. 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.12,39,600/- along with interest at the rate of
8% 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:
Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased
was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident
and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by
working in Agarabatti factory. But the Tribunal is not
justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased
as only Rs.8,000/-.
Secondly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM reported in
2018 ACJ 2782, each of the claimants are entitled
for compensation under the head of 'loss of love and
affection and consortium'. Hence, he prays for
allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has raised the following
contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the
deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the
same is not established by the claimants by producing
documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
Secondly, since the claimants have not
established the income of the deceased, they are not
entitled for compensation towards 'future prospects'.
Thirdly, considering the age and avocation of the
deceased the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable.
Fourthly, in view of the Division Bench decision
of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND
OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA
5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of
on 24.8.2020), the interest granted by the Tribunal
at the rate of 8% p.a. is on the higher side. Hence,
he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment and award and original
records.
9. It is not in dispute that deceased died in
the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
The claimants have not produced any evidence
or documents with regard to the income of the
deceased. Therefore, the notional income has to be
assessed as per the guidelines issued by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the
accident has taken place in the year 2017, the
notional income has to be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.
To the aforesaid amount, 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 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY
SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC
5157. Thus, the monthly income comes to
Rs.15,400/-, out of which, it is appropriate to deduct
50% towards personal expenses and therefore, the
monthly income comes to Rs.7,700/-. The deceased
was aged about 21 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.16,63,200/- (Rs.7700*12*18) on account of 'loss
of dependency'.
In addition, the claimants are entitled to
Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and
Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'.
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE (supra),
the claimants are entitled for compensation of
Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'loss of filial
consortium'.
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 16,63,200
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of Filial consortium 80,000
Total 17,73,200
The claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.17,73,200/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest 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. The enhanced
compensation carries interest @ 6% p.a.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the
Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cm/-
