Sri Rangappa vs M/S United India Insurance Co ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 131 Kant

                           1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                       BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3770 OF 2017 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

SRI: RANGAPPA
S/O LATE GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.8,
RAAGIMAKALAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TQ. AND DISTRICT.
AND ALSO RESIDENT OF
SADENAHALLI,
GOWDAGERE,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF
K.GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE,
MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560084.
                                        ... APPELLANT
[BY SRI. R. LAKSHMANA, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC)]

AND:

1.     M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       BY ITS MANAGER
       REGIONAL OFFICE,
       T.P.HUB, NO.18,
       5TH AND 6TH FLOOR,
       KRUSHI BHAVANA,
       HUDSON CIRCLE,
                          2


     NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
     BENGALURU-560009.

2.   M/S. ADI BHASKAR MARKETING CO.,
     BY ITS MANAGER,
     NO.22, MUNIYAPPA COMPOUND,
     PANTHARAPALYA,
     MYSORE ROAD,
     BENGALURU-560039.
                                 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. JAIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1;
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS
DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED
07.12.2017)

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
06.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2376/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE XXI A.C.M.M. AND XXIII A.S.C.J., BENGALURU
(SCCH-25), ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

                 JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed by the claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes,

Bengaluru (SCCH-25) (henceforth referred to as

'Tribunal') in terms of the Judgment and Award dated

06.06.2016 in MVC No.2376/2014.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as

they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claim petition discloses that the

claimant is a dependant and the legal representative of

Gangappa who died on 13.02.2014. It is stated that on

29.11.2013, the said Gangappa was riding pillion on a

TVS Scooty bearing registration No.KA-40-S-2892 on

Chikkaballapura-Gowribidanur road. When he reached

Bommenahalli Cross, the driver of a Maruthi Car

bearing registration No.KA-41-P-2208 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'offending vehicle') drove it in a rash

and negligent manner and ended up dashing against

the TVS scooty. As a result of the accident, Gangappa

sustained serious injuries and was shifted to

Government Hospital, Chikkaballapur and then to

NIMHANS and thereafter to Victoria Hospital, where he

was treated as an inpatient and thereafter to

Government Hospital, Chikkaballapur, where he was

treated as an inpatient but succumbed to injuries on

13.02.2014. The claimant contended that he had spent

a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the treatment of the

deceased. The claimant claimed that the deceased was

a mason and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month and

was contributing the entire amount to the family. The

claimant claimed that he was entirely dependent on the

deceased and claimed compensation by filing a claim

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988, claiming compensation of a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- from the owner and the insurer of the

offending vehicle.

4. The claim petition was contested by the

insurer of the offending vehicle. The insurer denied the

accident as well as the negligence on the part of the

driver of the offending vehicle. It however contended

that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a

valid licence and therefore, it must be exonerated from

paying any compensation. With these contentions, the

claim petition was set down for trial.

5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant was

examined as PW1 and a witness as PW2 who spoke

about the negligence on the part of the driver of

offending vehicle and marked documents as Exs.P1 to

P17. The insurer did not lead any evidence and did not

mark any document.

6. The Tribunal considered the fact that the

deceased was 65 years old at the time of the accident

and that the claimant did not place on record any proof

of avocation of the deceased. Thus, the Tribunal

considered the notional income of the deceased at a

sum of Rs.7,000/- per month. The Tribunal noticed

that the claimant was a major by age and there was no

material to indicate that he was dependent on the

deceased and thus, deducted 50% of the notional

income of the deceased towards his personal expenses

and awarded the following compensation.

            Heads under which                   Amount in
          compensation awarded                   Rupees
  Loss of estate                                 2,10,000
  Funeral expenses                                 25,000
  Transportation of dead body                      10,000
                     Total                       2,45,000

     7.    Feeling       aggrieved   by   the   quantum     of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant

has filed this appeal.

8. The learned counsel for the claimant -

appellant submits that the Tribunal ought to have

considered the notional income of the deceased at a

sum of Rs.8,500/- per month as is done by this Court

in the matters referred to Lok Adalath for settlement.

He also contended that the Tribunal had committed an

error in applying the multiplier of '5' instead of '7'. The

learned counsel further contended that the deceased

underwent treatment at various hospitals which

resulted in expenses to the claimant towards attendant

charges. He therefore, contended that the award of

compensation may be enhanced.

9. Per contra, the counsel for the insurer

vehemently contended that the claimant was a 43 years

old person and except his self serving statement that he

was dependent on the deceased, there was no material

to show that he was really dependent on the deceased.

He therefore, contended that the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal is just and proper having regard to the

fact that the deceased was 65 years old at the time of

the accident and that he was not pursuing any known

avocation. The learned counsel therefore supported the

Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal.

10. It is not in dispute that the deceased

suffered injuries in the accident and it is also not in

dispute that the deceased was shifted from one hospital

to the another which must have involved substantial

expenses towards transportation and attendant

charges. Though this Court has accepted a sum of

Rs.8,500/- per month as notional income in respect of

the persons who are injured or who die in road

accidents during the year 2013, having regard to the

fact that the claimant was not dependent on the

deceased, it is appropriate that the Judgment and

Award passed by the Tribunal considering the notional

income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.7,000/- per

month is left undisturbed.

11. However, instead of considering the question

whether the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 7%

instead of 5%, it is felt appropriate that in order to meet

the ends of justice, some compensation is awarded

towards 'conveyance charges' and 'attendant charges' by

rounding off the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is ordered that the

enhanced compensation shall be paid by the insurer to

the claimant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from

the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

12. The insurer is directed to deposit the said

amount within a period of one month from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment.

Sd/-

JUDGE GH