Karnataka High Court

Sri Rajegowda vs The Branch Manager on 19 January, 2021

Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                           AND

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

                 M.F.A.No.7901/2018 (MV)

BETWEEN :

1.      SRI RAJEGOWDA H.R. @ RAJEGOWDA
        S/O RAMEGOWDA
        AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

2.      SMT.GOWRAMMA
        W/O RAJEGOWDA
        AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

3.      KUM. GEETHA
        D/O RAJEGOWDA
        AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

4.      MASTER KIRAN KUMAR H.R. @ KIRAN
        S/O RAJEGOWDA,
        AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

        ALL ARE R/AT J.HOSAHALLI
        RUDRAPATNA, ARKALGUD
        HASSAN DISTRICT-560020             ...APPELLANTS

          (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR RODNAVAR, ADV.)

AND :

1.      THE BRANCH MANAGER
                          -2-

      RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
      NO.5/11 & 6/112, 1ST FLOOR
      UNNATHI ARCADE, 1ST BLOCK,
      Dr. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJI NAGAR
      BANGALORE
      POLICY NO.140152334001330
      VALID FROM 2/9/2014 TO 1/9/2015

2.    SRI VENKATARAJU D.,
      S/O DODDAYALLAPPA, MAJOR
      R/O NO.151, GERUPALYA BUS STOP
      KUMBALAGOUD POST
      BIG BABIAN TREE ROAD
      BANGALORE SOUTH-560060                ...RESPONDENTS

              (BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R-1.)

      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
01.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.5415/2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-18), PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                     JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment and

award dated 1.9.2017 passed in MVC No.5415/2016 on

the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Court of

Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-18) [Tribunal

for short].

2. The claimants instituted the petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking

compensation for the death of Parashuram in the road

traffic accident.

3. It was averred in the claim petition that on

10.2.2015 at about 6.00 a.m. when the deceased was

proceeding in lorry bearing Registration No.KA-51-C-

1294 (offending vehicle) as a cleaner and one Yellappa

was driving the said lorry, near Kolahal, opposite to

Avergreen Hotel on NH-4, Chitradurga, the driver of the

said lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed against the arch pillar erected by

NHAI. Due to the said impact, the cleaner Parashuram

who was seated in the front cabin of the lorry sustained

fatal injuries and died at the spot. It was contended that

the deceased was aged about 21 years and working as

a cleaner in 2nd respondent's lorry and earning

Rs.12,000/- per month. It was stated that the

claimants 1 and 2 being the parents and claimants 3

and 4 being the siblings of the deceased were

dependent on the deceased. Due to the untimely death

of the deceased, they have suffered lot of mental agony,

loss of dependency, loss of love and affection etc.,

4. In pursuance to the notice issued by the

Tribunal, the respondents appeared through their

respective counsel and filed their objection statement.

5. The defence taken by the respondent No.1

insurer was that owner of the vehicle has not paid any

additional premium to cover the risk of his employees,

and as such, the risk of the cleaner of the lorry was not

covered in the policy. It was contended that the driver of

the lorry had no valid and effective driving licence to

drive the transport vehicle and the said vehicle had no

valid fitness certificate and permit to ply on the road as

on the date of the accident and as such, the insurer is

not liable to indemnify the owner for breach of the policy

conditions. It was further contended that the claim

made by the claimants is exorbitant and baseless.

6. The owner of the vehicle filed the written

statement denying the petition averments contending

that the offending vehicle was insured with the 1st

respondent-insurer and the policy was in force as on the

date of the accident. Accordingly, he sought for the

dismissal of the claim petition against him with costs.

7. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were

framed and answered allowing the petition in part

awarding compensation of Rs.9,71,000/- with interest

@ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

deposit.

8. Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded, the claimants have preferred

the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the claimants

submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the

material evidence on record in a right perspective. The

income of the deceased determined by the Tribunal at

Rs.5,000/- per month is abysmally low. The

compensation awarded under the different heads being

inadequate, the same calls for interference by this

Court.

10. Learned counsel for the insurer would

submit that the Tribunal on profuse analysis of the

material evidence available on record has awarded just

compensation and there is no scope for enhancement,

accordingly sought for dismissal of the appeal.

11. We have carefully considered the rival

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and perused the original records.

12. The factum of accident and the death of the

victim Parashuram in the road traffic accident in

question are not in dispute. The crux of the controversy

revolves around the determination of the monthly

income of the deceased by the Tribunal as well as the

quantum of compensation awarded under the different

heads.

13. The Tribunal has notionally determined the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- which in

our considered view is on the lower side. Having regard

to the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal

Services Authority, we deem it appropriate to re-

determine the monthly income notionally at Rs.9,000/-.

Adding 40% towards future prospects, the total income

would Rs.12,600/- per month. Since the deceased was

aged about 21 years as on the date of the accident,

applying the multiplier of 18, deducting 50% towards

personal and living expenses of the deceased as he was

a bachelor at the time of accident, the loss of

dependency would be Rs.13,60,800/- (Rs.12600 x 12 x

18 x ½).

14. In terms of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others reported in ((2017)16 SCC

680) and New India Assurance Company Limited Vs.

Somawati and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644,

the claimants are entitled to compensation of

Rs.1,10,000/- under the conventional heads. Thus, the

total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified

as under:

Sl.No.               Particulars            Amount [in Rs.]
  1.            Loss of dependency            13,60,800
              Loss of filial Consortium
  2.                                            80,000
             (Rs.40000 to each parent)
  3.               Loss of Estate              15,000
  4.             Funeral expenses               15,000
                   Total                     14,70,800

Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation

of Rs.14,70,800/- with interest @ 6% p.a. on the

enhanced compensation from the date of petition till its

realization.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

ii) The total compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is modified and enhanced to

Rs.14,70,800/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs

Seventy thousand Eight hundred only) as

against Rs.9,71,000/- which shall carry