Karnataka High Court
Smt Mangala vs Thammanna Gowda H G on 6 January, 2021
Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
MFA NO.1408 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MANGALA
W/O LATE M. G. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
2. M.S.PUSHPASHREE
D/O LATE M. G. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
3. PRAMOD GOWDA
S/O LATE M.G.NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS
4. GANGANNA @ GANGAIAH
S/O LATE MARANNA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
5. JAYAMMA
W/O GANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
SINCE APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.MANGALA
ALL ARE R/AT
MAYANAYAKANAHALLI
2
KALYA POST, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 575 211
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THAMMANNA GOWDA H.G.
S/O GANGANNA
NO.57, HELAGALLI VILLAGE
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 575 211
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144
SHUBRAM COMPLEX
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. ARUN PONNAPPA, ADV. FOR R-2;
NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 05.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.50/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MAGADI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 05.08.2017
passed in MVC No.50/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Magadi (for short 'the Tribunal'), the
petitioners therein have preferred this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased
M.G.Nagaraju was the pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-42/R-9772 and one Basavaraju was the rider
of the motorcycle. That on 21.10.2014, at about 7.00 p.m., both
of them were proceeding from Baginigere towards
Mayanayakanahalli on Kunigal Magadi road. When they were
near Kenchanahalli village bridge, there was a pot hole on the
said road and the rider Basavaraju who was driving the
motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner lost control as a
result of which both fell down and sustained injuries. The
deceased succumbed to the said injuries.
4. The petitioners are the wife, minor daughter, minor son,
father and mother of the deceased. Respondent no.1 is the
owner of the motorcycle and respondent no.2 is the Insurance
Company with whom the motorcycle was duly insured. On the
ground that the deceased was a JCB owner and also doing
agriculture work, the petitioners claimed a compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/- before the Tribunal.
5. After due service of notice, respondent no.1 remained
ex parte, respondent no.2 appeared through its Counsel and filed
its written statement denying the liability. The petitioners
examined one witness and got marked Exs.P1 to P22. The
respondents did not examine any witness nor marked any
documents.
6. Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, the
Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.15,25,000/- to the
petitioners along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of claim
petition till its realization. Not satisfied by the same, the
petitioners have preferred this appeal.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Tribunal has
ignored the income of the deceased and has granted the
compensation which is much on the lower side.
9. Per contra, respondent no.2 has justified the order of the
Tribunal and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
10. The deceased Nagaraju was aged 37 years at the time of
the accident. The accident took place in the year 2014. Though
it is claimed that the deceased was earning handsomely, no
adequate proof of income has been produced. But, taking into
consideration that he was a owner of JCB and agriculturist, the
Tribunal has taken his notional income at Rs.10,000/- per month
and awarded the compensation. We do not find any error in the
same. However, it is noticed that the Tribunal has failed to
award future prospects in terms of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. Thus, 40% has to be
added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects.
Accordingly, the petitioners would be entitled to a sum of
Rs.18,90,000/- as against Rs.13,50,000/- as awarded by the
Tribunal [Rs.10,000/- + 40% x 12 x 15 multiplier X 3/4th].
11. The Tribunal has also erred in not properly quantifying the
loss towards consortium and funeral expenses. The petitioners
are wife, children and parents of the deceased. As per the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India
Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Somwati [(2020)9 SCC 644], the
petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of
consortium. Thus, together they are entitled to Rs.2,00,000/-
towards loss of consortium. Further, they are entitled to a sum
of Rs.30,000/- on the count of loss of estate and funeral
expenses.
12. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of
Rs.21,20,000/- as against Rs.15,25,000/- as ordered by the
Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest
@ 6% p.a. from the date of claim 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.21,20,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs
Twenty Thousand Only) as against
Rs.15,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum on the enhanced compensation from
the date of the claim petition till its realization.
iii) The insurance company shall deposit the amount
determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal
within 90 days from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of the judgment and order.
iv) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch
as liability, apportionment and disbursement
remains intact.
v) The modified compensation amount shall be
apportioned and disbursed in terms of the order
of the Tribunal.
vi) Draw modified award accordingly.
vii) All pending I.As. stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
hkh.
