Karnataka High Court
Smt.Shet Lakshmi vs Sanjay Dada Pawar on 8 January, 2021
Author: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.8902 OF 2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHET LAKSHMI
W/O LATE NARAYAN
@ NARAYAN KARIAPPA SHET
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.102, DIVARAKERI
TAREHALLY KANASUR
SIDDAPURA TALUK
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
KARNATAKA.
2. SRI. DINESH
S/O LATE NARAYAN
@ NARAYAN KARIAPPA SHET
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.298-2,
19TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK
BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE
BANGALORE-560 050.
3. SRI. MAHESH
S/O LATE. NARAYAN
@ NARAYAN KARIAPPA SHET
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO.298-2
2
19TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK
SRINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 019.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.M.K.KEMPEGOWDA, ADV. )
AND
1. SANJAY DADA PAWAR
S/O DODA, MAJOR
AT POST MHASOBA NAGAR
SHIRADI TOWN, RAHATA TALUK
AHMADNAGAR DISTRICT
MAHARASHTRA STATE-413709.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
KRISHI BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Y.P.VENKATAPATHI, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED: 21.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.4378/2011
ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT,
BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCMENT OF COMPENSATION.
3
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT 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 being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.2.2013 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 1.12.2010 the deceased
Narayan was walking as a pedestrian along with his
wife and son in front of Hotel Sai Plaza in Shirdi Town,
Nagarmanmad Road, at that time, a Hero Honda
Motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-17-AC-5296
which was being ridden in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of
the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the
hospital.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section
166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was
aged about 65 years at the time of accident and was
employed as Jewellery and arecanut business and was
earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. The claimants claimed
compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- along
with interest.
4. On service of summons, the respondent
No.2 appeared through 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. It was
further pleaded that the accident was not due to the
rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its
rider. The liability is subject to terms and conditions of
the policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of
compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant.
Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. The
respondent No.1 did not appear inspite of service of
notice and was 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 got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.
On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was
examined nor any document was produced. The
Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia,
held that the accident took place on account of rash
and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its
rider, 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.2,41,000/- 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 has been
filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimants has
raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased
was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by doing jewelery
and arecanut business. But the Tribunal is not justified
in taking the monthly income of the deceased as
merely as Rs.3,300/-.
Secondly, 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 claimants are
entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the
head of 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- under the
head of 'transportation and funeral expenses'.
Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM reported in
2018 ACJ 2782, each of the claimants are entitled
for compensation under the head of 'loss of love and
affection and consortium'.
Fourthly, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower
side.
Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the
claimants prays for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has raised the following
counter-contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the
deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, the
same is not established by the claimants by producing
documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
Secondly, the claimant No.1 wife of the deceased
in the only dependent and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are
major children of the deceased and they are not
dependent and therefore 50% of the income of the
deceased has to be deducted towards personal
expenses instead of 1/3rd deducted by the Tribunal.
Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal has awarded just and
reasonable compensation.
Hence, the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that deceased died in
the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
The claimants have not produced any evidence or
documents with regard to the income of the deceased.
Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed as
per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place
in the year 2010, the notional income has to be taken
at Rs.5,500/- p.m. Out of which, it is appropriate to
deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses, since the
deceased was a married person and therefore, the
monthly income comes to Rs.3,667/-. The deceased
was aged about 65 years at the time of the accident
and multiplier applicable to his age group is '7'. Thus,
the claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.3,08,028/- (Rs.3,667*7*12) on account of 'loss of
dependency'.
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE', claimant
No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for
compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss
of spousal consortium', claimant Nos.2 and 3, children
are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each
under the head of 'loss of parental consortium'.
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'.
Compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
medical expenses is just and reasonable.
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 308,028
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of Parental 80,000
consortium
Medical expenses 12,000
Total 470,028
The claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.470,028/-
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 excluding interest for
the delayed period of 122 days in filing the appeal.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the
Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
