Smt Manjula vs M/S Icici Lombard General ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1388 Kant

                               1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                              AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

              M.F.A. NO.3014 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:

1.     SMT. MANJULA
       W/O LATE CHANDRAHASA
       AGED 38 YEARS.

2.     N.C. PRAJWAL
       S/O LATE CHANDRAHASA
       AGED 12 YEARS
       SINCE MINOR HE IS REPRESENTED BY
       HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL
       GUARDIAN THE FIRST APPELLANT VIZ
       SMT. MANJULA.

3.     SMT. GOWRAMMA
       W/O LATE KARIGOWDA
       AGED 78 YEARS.

       ALL ARE R/AT NO.9/A, NAVILUMARANAHALLI
       K.R. PETE, MANDYA-571 426.
                                                ... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. SRIDHAR D.S. ADV.,)

AND:

1.     M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       REP BY ITS MANAGER
       NO.89, 2ND FLOOR
       SVR COMPLEX
                              2



     MADIVALA
     HOSUR MAIN ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 060.

2.   PRAKASH H K
     S/O KARIYAPPA GOWDA
     MAJOR, R/AT NO.56/1, 1ST CROSS
     K K ROAD, T. DASARAHALLI
     BENGALURU-560 057.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADV., FOR R1
    MR. C.M. RAJANEESH, ADV., FOR R2)

                            ---

     THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.11.2016 PASSED
IN MVC NO.4050/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL
JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE,
(SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION       AND     SEEKING   ENHANCEMENT      OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., 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 seeking

enhancement of the amount of compensation against

the judgment dated 28.11.2015 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 20.06.2015, the deceased

Chandrahasa was standing alongside the underpass at

Huskur Gate, Hosur Road. At that time, a Tata Sumo

bearing Registration No.KA-41-3911, which was being

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,

came towards the extreme right side of the road and

dashed against the deceased. As a result of the

aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous

injuries and succumbed to the same.

3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition

under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on

the ground that the deceased was aged about 45 years

at the time of accident and was engaged as an

agriculturist and coolie and was earning a sum of

Rs.20,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that

accident took place solely on account of rash and

negligent driving of the Tata Sumo by its driver. The

claimants claimed compensation to the tune of

Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest.

4. The insurance company filed written

statement, in which the mode and manner of the

accident was denied. It was further pleaded that the

accident occurred on account of the deceased himself

who was walking in the middle of the road. It was also

pleaded that the driver of the Tata Sumo did not hold a

valid and effective permit or fitness certificate at the

time of accident and that the liability of the insurance

company, if any, would be subject to the terms and

conditions of the insurance policy. The age, avocation

and income of the deceased was also denied and it was

pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and

excessive.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined

herself as PW-1, Bharath (PW2) and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. The respondents

neither adduced any oral evidence nor any documentary

evidence. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned

judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on

account of rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo

by its driver. It was further held, that as a result of

aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and

succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that

the claimants are entitled to a compensation of

Rs.14,86,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per

annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed

seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted

that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the

income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month and in

any case, the same ought to have been taken as per the

guidelines framed by the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has

erred in not making an addition to the tune of 25% to

the income of the deceased on account of future

prospects in view of the law laid down by the Supreme

Court in 'NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS' AIR

2017 SC 5157. It is further submitted that the sums

awarded under the heads 'loss of consortium' and

'funeral expenses' are on the lower side and deserves to

be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, learned

counsel for the insurance company submitted that no

evidence has been adduced by the claimants to prove

the income of the deceased before the Tribunal and that

the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the

deceased notionally at Rs.8,000/- per month. It is

further submitted that the amount of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not

call for any interference.

7. We have considered the submissions made

by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

record. The only question which arises for our

consideration in this appeal is with regard to the

quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the claimants

have not produced any evidence with regard to the

income of the deceased. Therefore, the notional income

of the deceased is assessed as per the guidelines issued

by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. Since the

accident is of the year 2015, the notional income of the

deceased is assessed at Rs.9,000/- per month.

8. In view of the law laid down by the

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 'NATIONAL

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI

AND OTHERS' AIR 2017 SC 5157, 25% of the amount

has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus,

the monthly income comes to Rs.11,250/-. Since, the

number of dependents is 3, therefore, 1/3rd of the

amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses

and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to

Rs.7,500/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased

which was 47 years at the time of accident, the

multiplier of '13' has to be adopted. Therefore, the

claimants are held entitled to (Rs.7,500x12x13) i.e.,

Rs.11,70,000/- on account of loss of dependency.

9. In view of laid down by the Supreme Court in

'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU

RAM & ORS.' (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been

subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in 'UNITED

INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR

AND ORS.' AIR 2020 SC 3076 each of the claimant's

are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss

of consortium and loss love and affection. Thus, the

claimants are held entitled to Rs.1,20,000/-. In addition,

claimants are held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of

loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the

claimants are held entitled to a total compensation of

Rs.13,20,000/-. Since the accident is of the year 2015,

the prevailing rate of interest for the year 2015 in

respect of fixed deposits for one year in nationalized

banks being 8%, the aforesaid amount of compensation

shall carry interest at the rate of 8% from the date of

filing of the petition till the realization of the amount of

compensation. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment

passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ss