Karnataka High Court
Shanthamma vs Shivegowda on 6 December, 2021
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.3760 OF 2020(MV)
BETWEEN:
1 . SHANTHAMMA
W/O. LATE. NARSHWIM MURATHI,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
2 . NAVEEN KUMAR V N
S/O. LATE. NARSHWIM MURATHI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT KAREHALLI VILLAGE
BHAGURU HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
PRESENT ADDRESS
NO. 331,KEREAPU RANGEGOWDA
CHANNAPATNA
HASSAN 573201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G.S. BYRA REDDY, ADV. FOR
SMT.KAVITHA H C., ADV.)
AND
1. SHIVEGOWDA
S/O. NANJEGOWDA
JOGANAHALLI VILLAGE
BHAGESHPURA POST
2
ARACEKERE TALUK
HASSAN DIST 573201.
2. MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
MANJUNATHA COMPLEX
OLD BUS STAND ROAD
ARACEKERE TALUK
HASSAN 573201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GEETHA RAJ, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W
V/O DATED: 06.12.2021)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.11.2019 PASSED
IN MVC NO.190/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND MEMBER, MACT,
HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
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 12.11.2019 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan in MVC
No.190/2019.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 13.12.2018 at about 10.45
P.M. while the deceased was crossing the road near
Bhuvanahalli Bypass for having food in the Krushna
Bhavan Hotel, at that time, the driver of the Car
bearing registration No.KA-13-N-6595 drove the same
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to 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. On service of summons, the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer have
appeared through counsel and filed written statement
in which the averments made in the petition were
denied. It was pleaded by the owner that the petition
itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was
further pleaded that the offending vehicle was covered
with the Insurance Company. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the petition.
It was pleaded by the Insurance Company that
the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of
law. It was further pleaded that the driver of the
offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence
as on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded
that there is no evidence that the claimants are
depending upon the income of the deceased. The
liability is subject to terms and conditions of the
policy. The age, occupation and income of the
deceased are denied. It was further pleaded that the
quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is
exorbitant. Hence, he 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 claimant No.1 as PW-1
and and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.10. On behalf of respondents, neither examined
any witness nor exhibited any document. 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 32 years at the time of the accident
and he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by doing
coolie work. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking
the monthly income of the deceased as merely as
Rs.9,000/-.
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 may be
considered.
Thirdly, 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'.
Fourthly, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the conventional heads 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:
Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the
deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- 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, in view of judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE
xzc AND OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS
(MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of
on 24.8.2020), the claimants are entitled for 6%
interest but the Tribunal has granted 8% interest
which is on the higher side.
Lastly, on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal has awarded just and
reasonable compensation. Hence, he prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment and award.
9. It is not in dispute that Narasimhamurthy
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 2018, the
notional income has to be taken at Rs.12,500/- 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 'PRANAY SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly
income comes to Rs.17,500/-. Since the deceased
was a bachelor at the time of the accident, it is
appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the
deceased towards personal expenses. Thus, the
monthly income comes to Rs.8,750/-. The deceased
was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident
and multiplier applicable to his age group is '16'.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.16,80,000/- (Rs.8,750*16*12) 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 the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE'
(supra), claimant No.1, mother of the deceased is
entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the
head 'loss of filial consortium' and claimant No.2,
brother of the deceased is entitled for compensation of
Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of love and
affection'.
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 16,80,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of love and 40,000
affection
Loss of Filial consortium 40,000
Total 17,90,000
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in
part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
The claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.17,90,000/-.
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 shall carry interest at 6% per annum.
In view of the disposal of the appeal,
I.A.No.2/2021 does not survive for consideration.
Hence, the same is also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA/-
