Karnataka High Court
Smt Panmathi Devi Bohara vs Sri Ramachandra R on 21 January, 2021
Author: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.6633 OF 2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PANMATHI DEVI BOHARA
W/O LATE MANDIR SINGH BOHARA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
2. SRI. SURAT BAHADUR BOHARA
S/O MANDIR SINGH BOHARA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
VENKATESH BUILDING
ABBAYANNA PALYA
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK-562106
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.NAIK N.R., ADV. )
AND
1. SRI. RAMACHANDRA R.,
U 24, MARUTHI NILAYA
1ST CROSS, NAGAPPA STREET
PALACE GUTTAHALLI
2
BANGALORE-560020.
2. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL
INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE
KVD TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR
7/3, OLD MADRAS ROAD
OPP:100 FEET ROAD,
INDIRANAGAR, BANGLORE-560 038.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED:15.03.2017)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:10.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO. 6951/2011
ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE & XXXIV ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-7 COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE,PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, 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 10.4.2013 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 6.6.2011 the deceased Dinesh
Bohra was proceeding as pedestrian was crossing road
i.e., Hosur Bangalore NH-7 Road, near Guest Line Hotel,
Opp.S.K.Dhaba U Cross, at that time, driver of the
Innova car bearing registration No.KA-01-D-2452 which
was being driven in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed against 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 to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- along with
interest.
4. On service of summons, the respondent No.2
appeared through counsel and filed written statement in
which the averments made in the petition were denied.
It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and
frivolous in the eye of law. It admits the policy issued in
favour respondent No.2 in respect of car. It was further
pleaded that the accident was due to the negligence of
the deceased himself. The driver of the offending vehicle
did not possess valid driving licence as on the date of
the accident. The liability is subject to terms and
conditions of the policy. The age, occupation and income
of the deceased is denied. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the petition.
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-1 and another
witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely
Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of respondents, neither any
witness was examined nor document was produced. 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.4,82,628/- 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
raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was
earning Rs.9,858/- per month by working as Soft Load
worker at M/s.Ficus Pax Pvt. Ltd. Attibele. But the
Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of
the deceased as merely as Rs.6,858/-.
Secondly, the Tribunal contrary to the provisions of
the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SARLA
VERMA AND OTHERS -V- DELHI TRANSPORT
CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121 has applied the multiplier based on the age of
the mother of the deceased instead of applying
multiplier based on the age of the deceased.
Thirdly, 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. But the Tribunal has failed to consider the
same.
Fourthly, 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'.
Fifthly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the conventional heads is on the lower side.
Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the
claimants 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.9,858/- per month, from the
salary slip at Ex.P-10 produced by the claimants, it is
clear that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.6,858/-
p.m. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the
same.
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, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable
compensation.
Hence, the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company 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 died in the
road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The
claimants claim that the deceased was earning
Rs.9,858/- per month. From the salary slip at Ex.P-10
produced by the claimants, it is clear that the deceased
was getting salary of Rs.6,858/- p.m. Therefore, the
Tribunal has rightly considered the same. 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.9,601/-. Out of which, it is appropriate to deduct
50% towards personal expenses since the deceased was
a bachelor and therefore, the monthly income comes to
Rs.4800/-. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Sarla Verma (supra), multiplier has to be
applied based on the age of the deceased. The deceased
was aged about 24 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.10,36,800/- (Rs.4800*18*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 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE', claimant No.1,
mother of the deceased is entitled for compensation of
Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of filial consortium'
and claimant No.2 is entitled for compensation of
Rs.40,000/- under the head of '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 10,36,800
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of filial consortium 40,000
Loss of love and affection 40,000
Total 11,46,800
The claimants are entitled to a total compensation
of Rs.11,46,800/-
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 four weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the
Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
