Smt Geetha vs Santhosh.N
2021 Latest Caselaw 210 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                        PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

               M.F.A. NO.5434 OF 2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:

SMT. GEETHA W/O RAMAMURTHI .H
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/O NEAR VIDYARTHI BHAVAN
KEB QUARTERS
DAVANAGERE-577002.
                                             ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     SANTHOSH .N S/O NAGARAJ T.H.
       AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
       DRIVER OF HERO HONDA SPLENDOR
       BEARING REG NO.KA-17/W-6419
       R/O D.NO.104, LENIN NAGAR
       DAVANAGERE-577001.

2.     RAMAMURTHY .H
       LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
       AGED ABUT 38 YEARS
       DRIVER OF HERO HONDA SPLENDOR
       BEARING REG NO.KA-17/W-6419
       R/O NEAR VIDYARTHI BHAVAN
       KEB QUARTERS
       DAVANAGERE-577002.
                              2



3.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
     UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
     DIVISIONAL OFFICE: 34/3
     M.M.M. COMPLEX
     AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD
     P.J. EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE-577001.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. RAVISH BENNI, ADV., FOR R3)
                            ---

     THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.03.2016 PASSED
IN MVC NO.181/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & 5TH MACT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS,            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 claimant seeking

enhancement of the amount of compensation against

the judgment dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly

stated are that on 08.05.2014, the deceased Sunilkumar

was proceeding as a pillion rider on Hero Honda

Splendor bearing registration No.KA-17/W-6419

belonging to respondent No.1. When they reached near

Inchara house, S.S.Hospital, Jayanagar, Davanagere

City, the rider of the vehicle drove the same in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed against the road side

tree. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased

sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

3. The claimant thereupon filed a petition under

Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the

ground that the deceased was aged about 20 years at

the time of accident and was working as a private dance

teacher and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. It

was further pleaded that accident took place solely on

account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

aforesaid vehicle. The claimant 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 pleaded that the insurance

company is not liable to pay compensation on account of

delay of a day caused in filing the complaint by the

claimant. 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 examined herself

as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to

Ex.P9. The respondents examined one Mallikarjuna M.H.

as RW-1 and got exhibited one document namely Ex.R1.

The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter

alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash

and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle. 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.8,03,000/- along with

interest at the rate of 6% 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.4,500/- 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 40% 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.4,500/- 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 to be assessed as per the guidelines

issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. Since

the accident is of the year 2014, the income of the

deceased is assessed at Rs.8,500/- p.m.

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, 40% of the amount

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

the monthly income comes to Rs.11,900/-. Since, the

deceased was a bachelor, therefore, 50% of the amount

has to be deducted towards personal expenses and

therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.5,950/-

Taking into account the age of the deceased which was

20 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of '18'

has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held

entitled to (Rs.5,950x12x18) i.e., Rs.12,85,200/- 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.' IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020

DECIDED ON 30.06.2020 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

claimant is held entitled to Rs.40,000/-. In addition,

claimant is held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of

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

claimant is held entitled to a total compensation of

Rs.13,55,200/-. Needless to state that the aforesaid

compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of filing of the petition till the

payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the

judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ss