Karnataka High Court
Smt M Arunamma vs Sri N Paramesh on 18 December, 2021
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
MFA NO. 2343/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. M.ARUNAMMA
W/O. LATE B MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
2. M.SUMANTH
S/O B MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
3. M.MOUNIKA
D/O LATE B. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,
4. M.DANUSH
S/O LATE B.MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS,
5. SR.DODDA BANDA PALLEPPA
S/O LATE KODIGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS
REP. BY THEIR MOTHER CUM
NATURAL GUARDIAN
APPELLANT NO.1 SMT.ARUNAMMA
ALL ARE R/AT THIPPENHALLI VILLAGE
AND POST, NANDI HOBLI,
CHIKBALLAPUR
TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SUGUNA R REDDY, ADVOCATE.)
2
AND:
1. SRI.N. PARAMESH
S/O NARASIMHAPPA, MAJOR
R/AT DODDA KIRUGAMBI,
JATHAWARA POST,
CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-101.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INS.CO.LTD.,
NO.25, 1st Floor,
SHANKARNARAYAN BUILDINGS,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. L.SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.02.2011
PASSED IN M.V.C NO.4030/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeal is filed by the claimants challenging
the judgment and award dated 11.02.2011, passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for short
hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), Bangalore, in MVC
No.4030/2009, whereby the claim petition allowed in
part by the Tribunal, awarding compensation of
Rs.5,12,300/- with interest at 6% p.a.
2. The appellants/claimants filed a claim
petition before the tribunal claiming compensation for
the death of one B Muniyappa who is the husband of
petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and
son of 5th petitioner, who died in a road traffic accident
occurred on 13.07.2008.
3. Brief case of the claimants before the
tribunal is that, on 13.07.2008 at about 11.30 pm,
when the deceased was returning back to his village
from Chikkaballapur by riding the motor cycle bearing
registration No.KA-04-ED-8299 in a moderate speed
and by following traffic rules, when he reached near
Thippenahalli Vilalge of Chikkaballapur-Gowribidanur
road, at that time, the rider of the offending motor cycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-40-J-4182 came from opposite
direction in a rash and negligent manner with high
speed and dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased
and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries and immediately
he was taken to Government Hospital, Chikkaballapur
for the first aid, thereafter, he was shifted to other
hospital at Bangalore, but he succumbed to the injuries.
Hence, the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 who are the wife,
children and father respectively have filed the claim
petition seeking compensation before the tribunal.
4. In response to the summons, both the
respondents appeared and filed their written
statements. They have denied the contentions of the
petitioners as false and contended that they be put to
strict proof of the same. It is contended that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of
the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04-ED-8299
by the deceased himself. The second respondent-
insurance company admitted that the insurance policy
was in-force as on the date of accident. However, the
liability of respondent/insurer is strictly subject to the
terms and conditions of policy and prayed to dismiss the
claim petition.
5. After considering the pleadings of the
parties, the tribunal framed the following issues:
"(i) Whether the petitioners prove that on
13.07.2008 at about 11.30 p.m., when the
deceased was returning back to his village from
Chikkaballapur on his motor cycle near
Thippenhalli Village gate, on Chikkaballapur-
Gowribidanur Road, at that time another motor
cycle bearing No.KA-40-J-4182 came at high
speed in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the deceased motor cycle, as a
result of which, he died as alleged?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, at what rate and from
whom?
(iii. What Order or Award?"
6. Before the tribunal, petitioner No.1 got
herself examined as PW.1 and got marked fourteen
documents as Exhibit P1 to P14 consisting of FIR,
complaint, Report, Requisition, certified copy of
Mahazar, Seizure Mahazar, Inquest Report, PM Report,
IMV Report, Rough Sketch, Charge Sheet, Indemnity
bond, copy of ration card, original hospital receipts and
prescriptions. On behalf of respondents, no evidence is
adduced.
7. After hearing the arguments, the tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs.5,12,300/- with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till
the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, this
appeal is filed.
8. Heard Smt. Suguna R Reddy, the learned
counsel for the appellants and Sri. L.Sreekanta, learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued
that the deceased was working as a Moulding contractor
and earning Rs.400 to Rs.500/- per day. But the
tribunal has taken only Rs.3,000/- per month, which is
on a lower side. Learned counsel further argued that the
tribunal has not awarded future prospects and a
compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards loss of
consortium is also very meager. Hence, prays for
enhancement of compensation in view of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
others, reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases
680.
10. Against this, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment
and award passed by the tribunal and submits that the
accident is of the year 2008 and the compensation
awarded by the tribunal is just and fair. Hence, prayed
to dismiss the appeal.
11. I have considered the arguments of learned
counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
judgment and award passed by the tribunal and records
of the case.
12. Admittedly, the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle and
the same is not disputed. The insurance policy of the
offending vehicle was also in-force as on the date of
accident. Hence, liability of the 2nd respondent is also
not disputed. The tribunal has taken income of the
deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, as there is no
records or materials produced. In my considered view,
the said income assessed by the tribunal appears to be
on the lower side. Even according to the notional
income to be taken where there is no proof of income in
the Lok-Adalath chart which is usually considered for
awarding compensation in MVC cases in Lok-Adalath, for
the year 2008, a sum of Rs.4,500/- is taken as notional
income. Therefore, the same is taken as the notional
income of the petitioner.
13. The deceased was admittedly aged about 35
years at the time of accident. Therefore, the appropriate
multiplier applicable to the age group of deceased is 16,
as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of SARLA VERMA(SMT) AN D OT HERS v.
DELHI TR ANSPORT CORPO RATION AN D
AN OTHER, (2009) 6 SCC 121. As there are five
dependants, as per the above said decision stated
supra, 1/4th income has to be deducted towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased. Recently
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY
SETHI AND OTHERS, REPORTED IN (2017) 16
SUPREME COURT CASES 680, has observed that 40%
future prospects will have to be added in respect of the
person who is below the age of 40 years. Therefore,
40% will be added to Rs.4,500/-, then it comes to
Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4500X40/100). After deducting 1/4th of
his income towards his personal expenditure, it comes
to Rs.4,725/-(Rs.6300x1/4=1575-6300). Therefore, the
compensation towards 'loss of dependency' works out to
Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.4,725x12x16). The appellants/
claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.9,07,200/-
towards loss of dependency as against Rs.4,32,000/-
awarded by the tribunal.
14. Further, the tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.20,000/-
towards love and affection, which is on meager side.
The constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi Supra, as stated supra held
that wife is entitled for the compensation under the
head 'loss of consortium' and children are entitled for
filial consortium and parents are entitled for parental
consortium. Since the appellant No.1 is the wife and
appellant No.2 to 4 are the children and appellant No.5
is the father of deceased respectively, in view of the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
(2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130, in the case of
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram
and others, they are entitled for a sum of
Rs.2,30,000/- towards loss of spouse consortium, filial
consortium and parental consortium and loss of love
and affection.
15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.35,300/- towards medical expenses, based on the
bills produced. The same is unaltered.
16. In the result, considering the nature of
injuries, evidence of the appellants, the compensation
awarded by the tribunal needs to be re-judged and is
recalculated under different heads as under:
Sl. Particulars Compensation Compensation re-
No. awarded by the determined by this
tribunal court
1. Loss of dependency Rs.4,32,000/- Rs.9,07,200/-
2. Loss of spousal Rs.30,000/- Rs.2,30,000/-
consortium and
parental consortium
and love and
affection,
3. Medical Expenses Rs.35,300/- Rs.35,300/-
4. Funeral expenses Rs.10,000/- ----
5. Loss of estate Rs.5,000/- ----
Rs. 5,12,300/- Rs.11,72,500/-
Total
In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) The appeal is partly allowed;
2) The impugned judgment and award passed by
Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bangalore (SCCH-17), having been modified, the
compensation is enhanced to Rs.11,72,500/-
(Rupees Eleven lakh Seventy-two thousand Five
hundred only) from Rs.5,12,300/- awarded by the
tribunal.
3) The appellants are entitled for the enhanced
compensation of Rs.6,60,200/- (Rupees Six
Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two hundred only) with 6%
per annum, from the date of petition till the date
of realization.
4) The other conditions of the tribunal regarding
apportionment and interest remained unaltered.
5) The insurance company shall make good the
differential amount within six weeks from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
6) Rest of the order passed by the tribunal is kept in
tact.
7) Costs made easy.
8) Sent back the records immediately to the tribunal.
As per the order dated 16.06.201, the appellants
are not entitled for the interest on the delayed period.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JS/-
