Karnataka High Court
Smt. Nagamani vs Mr. Mada on 17 December, 2021
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.3288 OF 2021(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAGAMANI
W/O ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
2. ANJINAPPA
S/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT MUTHAKADIRENAHALLI (V)
KOTHUR (P)
CHINTHAMANI (T)
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.NAIK KRISHNA VENKATRAMAN, ADV.)
AND
1. MR. MADA
S/O MAHILA, MAJOR
ARASUNAGAR
SAKLESHPUR TLUK
HASSAN DISTRICT 573219.
2
2. THE MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE
5TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVANA
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU 560001.
3. ANNAYYAPPA N Y
S/O DOBHIKRISHNAPPA
R/AT NELLIMARADAHALLI VILLAGE
DIBBUR POST
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.NAGARAJAIAH, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 & R3 ARE D/W
V/O DATED: 17.12.2021)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
10.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 5393/2019 ON THE
FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (SCCH-1), PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
3
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 10.3.2021 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in
MVC 5393/2019.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 4.8.2018 the deceased
Venkatesh was proceeding on motorcycle bearing
No.KA-50-S-5763 as a pillion rider from Peresandra
towards Gudibande/Myakalahalli, near
R.Chikkanahalli, at that time, a Maxi Cab/Force Trax
bearing registration No.KA-46-1378 which was being
driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against
the motorcycle. 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.2 and 3 appeared through counsel and filed
written statements in which the averments made in
the petition were denied.
The respondent No.1 did not appear before the
Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was
placed ex-parte.
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-2
and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P18.
On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined
as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1
to Ex.R2. 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.17,73,200/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% 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
contended that the claimants claim that the deceased
was aged about 19 years at the time of the accident
and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by
working as Mason. But the Tribunal is not justified in
taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely
as Rs.11,000/-. Consequently, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of
dependency' is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for
enhancement of compensation.
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.20,000/- 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, 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. Hence, he prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that deceased
Venkatesh died in the road traffic accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by its driver.
The claimants claim that deceased was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month. But they have not produced
any documents to prove the income of the deceased.
In the absence of proof of income, the notional income
has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by
the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the
accident taken place in the year 2019, the notional
income of the deceased has to be taken at
Rs.14,000/- p.m.
To the aforesaid income, 40% has been
rightly added by the Tribunal 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 [AIR 2017 SC 5157]. Thus,
the monthly income comes to Rs.19,600/-. Since the
deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal has rightly
deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards
personal expenses and remaining amount has been
taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased
was aged about 19 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.21,16,800/- (Rs.19,600*12*18*50%) on account
of 'loss of dependency'.
The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation
of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and
compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral
expenses'.
Further, in view of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM reported in
2018 ACJ 2782, the Tribunal has rightly awarded
compensation of Rs.40,000/- each to the claimants
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 21,16,800
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of Filial consortium 80,000
Total 22,26,800
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.22,26,800/- as against
Rs.17,73,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.
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 copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
