Karnataka High Court
Smt Sukanya vs Icici Lombard Gen Ins Co Ltd on 4 January, 2021
Author: Nataraj Rangaswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
MFA NO.234 OF 2017 (MV)
Between:
1. Smt. Sukanya W/o Udaykumar
W/o Late Udaykumar
Aged about 43 years
2. Master Abhishek S/o Late Udaykumar
Aged about 15 years
3. Kum. Anushree S/o Late Udaykumar
Aged about 13 years
Appellant Nos.2 & 3 are minors
Rept. By their natural guardian mother
Appellant No.1, all are
R/o Koppa Town & Post
Koppa Taluk
Chikkamagaluru District-577 101.
.... Appellants
(By Sri. Prakash M H, Advocate)
And:
1. ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
By its Manager
ICICI Lombard House
No.414, Veer Savarkar Marg
Near Siddivinayaka Temple
Prabhadevi, Mumbai
Branch office at
Allukhas Jewellary
Light House, Hill Road
Hampanakatta
Mangaluru-575110.
2
2. Praveen Prabhu
S/o Raghavendra Prabhu
Aged about 44 years
Ananthabettu House
Bettvayu Village & Post
3. Sri Herald Cardoya
S/o S M Cardayo
Aged 45 years
R/o Praathya Village
Moodabidiri-574 227.
4. A Giridhara Rao S/o Chinnappaiah
Aged about 73 years
5. Smt. Shantha W/o A Giridhara Rao
Aged about 67 years
Respondent Nos.4 & 5
Are R/o Gumettu House
Hosangadi Village, Perinje Post
Belthangadi Taluk
Dakshina Kannada-574 227.
... Respondents
(By Sri. B Pradeep, Adv. For R1
V/o dt.28.11.17 notice to R2 to R5 dispensed with)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated
26.04.2016 passed in M.V.C.No.613/2013 on the file of
the II Additional District Judge and M.A.C.T,
Chikkamagaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging
the Judgment and Award dated 26.04.2016 passed
by the II Additional District Judge and M.A.C.T,
Chikkamagaluru in MVC No.613/2013 ( henceforth
referred to as "Tribunal").
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission,
the same is taken up for final disposal with the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The parties are referred to as they were
arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The claimants are the wife and children of
Udaykumar while respondent Nos.4 and 5 are his
parents. It is stated that Udaykumar was proceeding
on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-21-H-
372 from Hosangadi towards Mudabidiri. When he
reached Urpelpade in Karinge village, the driver of a
bus bearing registration No.KA-19-AD-5451
(henceforth referred to as "offending vehicle") drove it
in rash and negligent manner from the opposite
direction and dashed against the motorcycle. As a
result, the said Udaykumar suffered injuries on his
head and other parts of the body and he was shifted
to AJ Hospital, Mangaluru where he was treated
between 15.02.2012 to 18.02.2012 but succumbed to
the injuries on 18.02.2012. The claimants contended
that the deceased was employed as a supervisor at
Assistant Engineer Division, Konkan Railway
Corporation Ltd., Udupi and was earning
Rs.30,000/- per month. The claims being dependents
on the deceased filed a claim petition under Section
166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of
Rs.2,00,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle.
5. The insurer of the offending vehicle
contested the claim petition and contended that it
was the deceased who was responsible for the
accident and therefore the insurer of the motorbike
ridden by the deceased had to be arrayed as a party.
It also contended that the deceased had no effective
driving license to ride the motorbike. Based on the
aforesaid rival contentions, the claim petition was set
down for trial.
6. Claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and
another witness was examined as PW.3 and they
marked Ex.P.1 to P.13 while the insurer and owner of
the offending vehicle did not lead any evidence and
did not mark any documents.
7. The Tribunal held that the accident was
due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of
the offending vehicle. In so far as claim for
compensation is concerned, the Tribunal noticed that
the deceased was 42 years old at the time of his
death and was employed at Konkan Railway
Corporation and was drawing a monthly salary of
Rs.14,760/-. Thus, it added 30% of his income
towards the loss of future prospects and deducted
1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and
applying multiplier of 14 awarded the following
compensation.
Heads under which Amount
compensation awarded (in Rs.)
Loss of dependency Rs.26,24,692.00
1,87,478x14
Consortium Rs.10,000.00
Loss of love and Rs.15,000.00
affection
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000.00
Funeral and obsequies Rs.10,0000.00
ceremonies
Conveyance charges Rs.10,000.00
Medical expenditure Rs.10,000.00
etc.,
Total 26,94,692.00
8. Aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
claimants are in appeal and contend that the
Tribunal ought not to have deducted 1/3rd of the
actual income of the deceased towards his personal
expenses since there were three dependents and
therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th
towards personal expenses of the deceased. The
claimants also claimed that they were entitled to
'Loss of filial love and affection' which the Tribunal
failed to award.
9. The learned counsel for the insurer
however contended that father of the deceased was
not a dependant and that the Tribunal was justified
in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the
deceased. He also contended that the claimants are
not entitled to compensation towards 'Loss of filial
love and affection'.
10. It is seen that the Tribunal had deducted
1/3rd of the actual income of the deceased towards
personal expenses. However it is seen that
respondent Nos.4 and 5 were also dependants on the
deceased. As held by the Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi, the Tribunal had to deduct 1/4th of
the income towards the personal expenses of the
deceased, if the dependents were more than three in
number. In that view of the matter, the deduction of
1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased was
not justified and to that extent the impugned
judgment and award deserves to be interfered with. It
is seen that the Tribunal had awarded compensation
under the conventional heads but had not awarded
compensation towards 'Loss of filial love and
affection' as held by the Apex Court in the case of
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Satinder
Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Others in Civil Appeal
No. 2705/2020. In that view of the matter, claimant
Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to 'Loss of filial love and
affection' and also respondent No.5 is entitled to 'Loss
of parental love and affection' at the rate of
Rs.40,000/-. Consequently, the appeal filed by
claimants is allowed in part and the compensation
to which the claimants are entitled to are recalculated
as follows:
Heads under which Amount
compensation awarded (in Rs.)
Loss of dependency 29,64,124.00
Loss of consortium in 10,000.00
respect of claimant No.1
Loss of love and affection 15,000.00
Loss of estate 15,000.00
Funeral and obsequies 10,000.00
expenses
Conveyance charges 10,000.00
Medical expenses 10,000.00
Loss of parental love and 80,000.00
affection towards claimant
Loss of filial love and 40,000.00
affection in respect of
respondent No.5
Total 31,54,124.00
11. In view of the above, appeal is allowed in
part and compensation of Rs.26,94,692/- awarded by
the Tribunal is enhanced to a sum of Rs.31,54,124/-
payable by the insurer of the offending vehicle along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization. Claimants
Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to 1/3rd share. In so far as
compensation towards loss of parental love and
affection is concerned respondent No.5 is entitled to
sum of Rs.40,000/-. The remaining compensation
shall be distributed amongst the claimants as per the
Judgment and award of the Tribunal including the
deposit of compensation in the respective names of
claimants as ordered by the Tribunal.
12. The insurer shall deposit the
compensation within one month from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nms
