Karnataka High Court
H Prema vs The Managing Director on 8 January, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
M.F.A. NO.700 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. H. PREMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O M N BALARAMA.
2. M B SUPRIYA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
D/O M N BALARAMA.
3. M B KAVYA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
D/O M N BALARAMA.
4. SANNATHAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
W/O LATE M B NANJAPPA.
APPELLANTS NO. 1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT MURUKANAHALLY VILLAGE
SEELANERE HOBLI
KR PET TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571423.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. P. NATARAJU, ADV.,)
2
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CUM
CUSTODIAN OF INTERNAL
INSURANCE FUND, SARIGE BHAVANA
K H DOUBLE ROAD
KSRTC, BENGALURU 560027.
... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. K. NAGARAJA, ADV.)
---
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.06.2014 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1178/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, K.R. PET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FURTHER 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 claimants seeking enhancement of the
amount of compensation against the judgment dated
13.06.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 14.10.2011, the deceased MN Balaramu
was proceeding in Karantaka State Road Transportation
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'KSRTC' for short) bus
bearing registration No.KA-17-F-1255. At that time, a bus
bearing registration No.KA-38-F-421 which was being driven
by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the
hind side and dashed against the KSRTC bus in which the
deceased was travelling. As a result of the aforesaid accident,
the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to
the same.
3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under
Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground
that the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of
accident and was employed in Karnataka State Warehouse
Corporation, Challakere and was earning a sum of
Rs.19,982/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident
took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of
the offending bus by its driver. The claimants claimed
compensation to the tune of Rs.41,05,000/- along with
interest.
4. The insurance company filed written statement,
in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It
was further pleaded that the accident occurred on account of
negligence of the driver of the KSRTC bus who suddenly
applied brakes without giving any signal or indication. It was
also pleaded that the claimants in collusion with the police
have filed a false complaint against the driver of the
offending bus. 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 No.1 examined herself as PW-1,
Loknath L (PW2) and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1
to Ex.P5. The respondents examined Jeevan (RW1) and did
not adduce any documentary evidence. 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 bus by its driver. 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.9,15,493/- along with interest at the rate of 8% 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 at Rs.5,000/- per month when Ex.P3 Salary
Certificate clearly discloses that the deceased was employed
in Karnataka Warehouse Corporation, Challakere and was
earning Rs.19,982/- per month. It is further submitted that
the Tribunal has erred in not making an addition to the tune
of 10% 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
also submitted that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of
the income towards personal expenses instead of 1/4th when
the number of dependents on the income of the deceased is
4. It is also urged 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 KSRTC submitted that the
employer of the deceased has not been examined to prove
the contents of Ex.P3 Salary Certificate evidence and
therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the
deceased notionally at Rs.5,000/- 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 examined the author of
Ex.P3 Salary Certificate to prove it contents. Therefore, the
income of the deceased has to be assessed notionally as per
the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services
Authority. Since the accident is of the year 2011, the notional
income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.6,500/- per month.
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, 10% of the amount has to be added on
account of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income
comes to Rs.7,150/-. Since, the number of dependents is 4,
therefore, 1/4th of the amount has to be deducted towards
personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency
comes to Rs.5,363/-. Taking into account the age of the
deceased which was 55 years at the time of accident, the
multiplier of '11' has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants
are held entitled to (Rs.5,363x12x11) i.e., Rs.7,07,916/- 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 claimants are held entitled to
Rs.1,60,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to
Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral
expenses. The amount of compensation awarded under the
heads 'medical expenses' and 'transportation charges' are
maintained. Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to a
total compensation of Rs11,48,585/-. Needless to state that
the aforesaid compensation shall carry interest at the rate of
8% 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
