Shriram General Ins Co Ltd vs Smt B Uma
2021 Latest Caselaw 562 Kant

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

                 M.F.A. NO.2503 OF 2016
                           C/W
              M.F.A. NO.5914 OF 2016 (MV-D)


M.F.A. NO.2503 OF 2016
BETWEEN:

SHRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO LTD.,
E-8, EPIP RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA
SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN 302022
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY MANAGER LEGAL
SHRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO LTD.,
#5/4, 3RD FLOOR S V ARCADE
BILEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD, OFF: B.G.
ROAD, IIM POST, BENGALURU-560 076.
                                              ... APPELLANT

(BY MR. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     SMT. B. UMA
       W/O B.C. VENKATESH
       NOW AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
       OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK.
                              2



2.   KUMARI V. THEJASVINI
     D/O B.C. VENKATESH
     NOW AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS.

3.   KUMARI V, KEERTHANA
     D/O B.C. VENKATESH
     NOW AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS.

     RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 HEREIN
     SINCE MINORS REPRESENTED BY
     THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER
     THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN.

4.   CHANNABASAPPA
     S/O BADE MARAIAH
     NOW AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
     OCC: COOLIE WORK.

5.   SMT. THIPPAMMA
     W/O CHANNABASAPPA
     NOW AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
     OCC:HOUSE HOLD WORK.

     ALL R/O PARASHURAMPURA
     CHALLAKERE TALUK
     CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

6.   K.T. RAGHU
     S/O THIMMAIAH
     OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
     NO.KA-14/2826
     R/A # 283, MALLATHAHALLI
     PAPA REDDY PALYA, II STAGE
     NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU-560 072.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. S.C. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV., FOR R1, R4 & R5
        R2 & R3 ARE MINORS REPTD. BY R1
        V/O DTD:17.10.2017 NOTICE TO R6 IS D/W)

                            ---

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.16/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, CHALLAKERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF

RS.17,98,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

M.F.A. NO.5914 OF 2016 BETWEEN:

1. SMT. B. UMA W/O LATE B.C. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS OCC: HOUSE WIFE.

2. KU. V. THEJASVINI D/O LATE B.C. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS.

3. KU. V. KEERTHANA D/O LATE B.C. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS.

SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 & 3 ARE MINOR REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E., B. UMA.

4. CHANNABASAPPA S/O LATE BADE MARAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS COOLIE WORK.

5. THIPPAMMA W/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF P. GOWRIPURA VILLAGE PARASHURAMPURA-577572 CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

... APPELLANTS (BY MR. VIJAYAKUMAR S.C. ADV.,)

AND:

1. K T RAGHU S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O #283, MAHATHAHALLI PAPAREDDY PALYA 2ND STAGE NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE-560 072.

2. SRI. RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD E-8 EPIP RICOO, SITAPURA RAJASTAN-302022 REPT BY BRANCH MANAGER.

... RESPONDENTS (BY MR. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADV., FOR R2 V/O DTD: 22.11.2017 NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

---

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.16/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, CHALLAKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THESE M.F.As. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGMENT

M.F.A.No.5914/2016 has been filed by the claimants

seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation,

whereas, M.F.A.No.2503/2016 has been filed by the

insurance company under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for

short) against the judgment dated 04.02.2016 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Since, both the appeals arise

out of the same accident and from the same judgment, they

were heard together and are being decided by this common

judgment.

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

stated are that on 19.02.2014, the deceased BC Venkatesh

was standing by the side of the road. At that time, a lorry

bearing registration No. KA-28-F1790 which was being driven

by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the

opposite direction and dashed against the deceased. 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 34 years at the time of

accident and was engaged in furniture making work and was

earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. It was further

pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash

and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of

Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest.

4. The insurance company filed written statement,

in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It

was also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did

not hold a valid and effective driving license at the time of

accident and that the liability of the insurance company, if

any, would be subject to the terms and conditions of the

insurance policy. 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,

Obalesha (PW2) and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1

to Ex.P10. The respondents examined Abhinandan AP (RW1)

and got exhibited 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 lorry 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.17,98,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per

annum. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the

Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the

deceased as Rs.8,000/- 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 also

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.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance

company submitted that the Tribunal erred in making an

addition to the income of the deceased on account of future

prospects at 50% as the deceased was self employed. It is

further submitted that the no evidence has been adduced by

the claimant 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.8,000/- per month. It is also

urged that the interest of 9% per annum awarded by the

Tribunal is on the higher side.

8. 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 notional income is

assessed at Rs.8,500/- 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, 40% of the amount has to be added on

account of future prospects as the deceased was self

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

Since, the number of dependents is 5, therefore, 1/4th of the

amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses and

therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.8,925/-.

Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 33

years at the time of accident, the multiplier of '16' has to be

adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to

(Rs.8,925x12x16) i.e., Rs.17,13,600/- 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.2,00,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to

Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral

expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to a

total compensation of Rs.19,43,600/-. Since the accident is

of the year 2014, the prevailing rate of interest for the year

2014 in respect of fixed deposits for one year in nationalized

banks being 9%, the aforesaid amounts of compensation

shall carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of

the petition till the realization of the amount of

compensation. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed

by the Claims Tribunal is modified. The amount in deposit, if

any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to

the claimants.

Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ss