Karnataka High Court
M/S. United India Insurance ... vs H.Lokesh @ Lokesh on 6 January, 2021
Author: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.1746 OF 2013(MV)
C/W
MFA CROB No.58 OF 2013(MV)
IN MFA 1746/2013
BETWEEN:
M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
HUNASUR CLUB COMPLEX
POST OFFICE ROAD, HUNASUR-571165
NOW REP.BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
NARUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LAKSHMI NARASAPPA, ADV. FOR
SRI.A M VENKATESH, ADV.)
AND
1. H.LOKESH @ LOKESH
S/O HUCHEGOWDA @ T.HUCHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
2
2. THARAKESHWARI @ TARA
W/O H LOKESH @ LOKESH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
3. DAKSHAYINI G L
D/O H LOKESH @ LOKESH
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT GANDHIGARAMA
KASABA HOBLI
NANJANGUD TALUK.
4. SURESH C
S/O CHENNANAYAK
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO.137, DEBUR VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI NANJANGUD TALUK.
5. ABIBULLA
S/O SABEER AHMED
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO.1/161, DIVISION 1
MUSLIM BLOCK, H D KOTE 571114
MYSORE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.C.NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3:
R4 & R5 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:02.08.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.65/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE MACT AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NANJANGUD, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
3
RS.6.80,000/- WITH INTEREST @ P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA CROB.58/2013
BETWEEN
1. H.LOKESH @ LOKESH
S/O HUCHEGOWDA @ T.HUCHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
2. SMT.THARAKESHWARI @ TARA
W/O H LOKESH
AGE 40 YEARS.
3. DAKSHAYINI G L
D/O H LOKESH
AGE 20 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF GANDHIGARAMA
KASABA HOBLI
NANJANGUD TALUK.
MYSORE DIST-571301.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. R.C.NAGARAJ, ADV.)
AND
1. SURESH C
S/O CHENNA NAIKA
28 YEARS
NO.137, DEBUR VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
NANJANGUD TALUK-571301.
2. ABIBULLA
4
S/O SABEER AHMED
47 YEARS
NO.1/161, DIVISION 1
MUSLIM BLOCK, H D KOTE-571114
MYSORE DISTRICT.
3. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
HUNASUR CLUB COMPLEX
POST OFFICE ROAD, HUNASUR-571165
REP.BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
NARUPATHUNGA ROAD,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADV. FOR
SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADV. FOR R3:
NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED:09.09.2019)
THIS MFA CROB. FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE
22 OF CPC, R/W SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:02.08.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.65/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT,
NANJANGUDU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
5
THIS MFA & MFA CROB. COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA No.1746/2013 is filed by the insurance
company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for
short) whereas MFA Crob.No.58/2013 is filed by the
claimants under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.06.2012 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Since, both
the appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the
same accident as well as a common judgment, they
were heard together and are being decided by this
common judgment.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
and cross objection briefly stated are that on
23.06.2011 at about 4.00 p.m., the deceased Madhu
G.L. @ Madhusudan G.L. was proceeding on tempo
bearing registration No.KA-09-2431, driven by its
driver, on Nanjangud - Hullahalli road, near Shiramalli
Gate. When the said tempo reached near the land of
Dwarakanath, the driver of the said vehicle drove the
same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner, due to the said impact, the tempo got
turtled. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the
deceased succumbed to the injury at the spot.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section
166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was
aged about 16 years at the time of accident and was
studying in I year PUC. He was a bright student and
had a great future. The claimants claimed
compensation to the tune of Rs.51,00,000/- along
with interest.
4. On service of summons, the respondent
No.3 appeared through the counsel and filed written
statement in which the averments made in the
petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition
itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law and it is
liable to be dismissed. It was further pleaded that the
accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of
the tempo by its driver. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the petition. The respondent Nos.1 and 2
did not appear inspite of service of notice and were
placed ex-parte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to
prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1
and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited 9
documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On behalf of
respondents, they have not examined any witness,
but got marked insurance policy as 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 offending vehicle by its driver,
as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries
and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further
held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation
of Rs.6,80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest. Being
aggrieved, this appeal and cross objection have been
filed.
6. The learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has raised the following:
Firstly, the claimants have not produced any
documents to show that the deceased was aged about
16 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal is not
justified in taking multiplier as '18' instead of 15. The
Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.4,500/-, which is on the higher side
since the deceased was a student and he was not an
earning member of the family. In support of his
contention he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and
Another -v- Lala and others, reported in ACJ
2594.
Secondly, since the deceased was a minor, the
claimants have not produced any documents in
respect of his age proof. Therefore, they are not
entitled any compensation under the head of 'loss of
future prospects'. In support of his contention, he
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Rajendra Singh and Others -v-
National Insurance Company Limited and Others
in Civil Appeal No.2534/2020, arising out of SLP
(Civil) 13964/2018.
Thirdly, the deceased was a bachelor, the
Tribunal instead of deducting 50%, has deducted 1/3
towards personal expenses of the deceased.
Fourthly, the compensation of Rs.6,48,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of
dependency' is on the higher side. Hence, the learned
counsel for the Insurance Company prays for allowing
of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company in
MFA.No.1746/2013 and dismissing the Cross objection
filed by the claimants in MFA.Crob.58/2013.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the claimants has raised the following counter
contentions:
Firstly, the deceased was aged about 16 years
and was studying in I year PUC in Government
College, Nanjangud. He was a bright student and was
participated in number of competitions, and he was
the only son and he had very good academic records.
Secondly, it is very clear from Ex.P3, post
mortem report that, the age of the deceased is
mentioned as 16 and multiplier applicable to the said
age group is '18'. In support of his contention, he
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Sarla Verma and Others -v- Delhi
Transport Corporation and others reported in AIR
2009 SCC 3104.
Thirdly, the deceased was a bright student, and
had a great future and he was assisting his father in
the agricultural work. The monthly income assessed
by the Tribunal as Rs.4,500/- is on the lower side.
Fourthly, it is very clear from the evidence of the
parties that the deceased had a very good future and
academic records. As per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND
OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], the Tribunal has not
assessed any future prospects.
Fifthly, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and
others (supra), the deceased was only aged about 10
years. In the case on hand, the deceased was 16
years old boy and he had very good academic records.
Hence, the learned counsel for the claimants prays for
allowing of the Cross objection filed by the claimants
in MFA.Crob.58/2013 and dismissing the appeal filed
by the Insurance Company in MFA.No.1746/2013.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that deceased Madhu
G.L. @ Madhusudan G.L., died in a road traffic
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-09-2431 offending
vehicle by its driver. At the time of accident, the
deceased was studying in I year PUC in Government
College, Nanjangud. It is very clear from the post
mortem report, Ex.P3, he was aged about 16 years.
As per the evidence of PW.1, it is specifically stated
that the deceased was only a son of the claimants.
The deceased was a bright student and had a very
good academic records. In the cross-examination
nothing worthwhile has been elicited. Taking into
consideration the evidence of the parties and
materials available on record, monthly income of the
deceased assessed by the Tribunal of Rs.4,500/- is
just and reasonable.
10. It is very clear from the school records as
well as Ex.P.3, the deceased was aged about 16
years. Hence, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), the
multiplier applicable to the said age group is 18.
11. In respect of future prospects is
concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased was
aged about 16 years and was studying in I year PUC
in Government College, Nanjangud. As per the
evidence of PW.1, the deceased was a bright student
and had a very good academic records. PW.1 has
specifically deposed that he has given education to his
son to get good job in the future. Taking into
consideration the age of the deceased and deposition
of PW.1 and also in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra) 40% of the income of the deceased has to be
added for future prospects. Thus, the monthly income
comes to Rs.6,300/-, out of which, it is appropriate to
deduct 50% towards personal expenses as the
deceased was a bachelor and therefore, the monthly
income comes to Rs.3,150/-. The deceased was aged
about 16 years at the time of the accident and
multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'. Thus,
the claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.6,80,400/- (Rs.3150*12*18) on account of 'loss of
dependency'.
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE', claimant
Nos.1 and 2, parents of the deceased are entitled for
compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of
'loss of filial consortium', claimant No.3, sister is
entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the
head of 'loss of love and affection'.
In addition, the claimants are entitled to
Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and
Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'.
12. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 6,80,400
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of filial consortium 80,000
Loss of love and 40,000
affection
Total 8,30,400
The claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.8,30,400/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 6%
p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the
Claims Tribunal is modified.
The amount in deposit before this Court shall be
transferred to the claims Tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal and Cross objection are
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mkm/-
