Karnataka High Court

Mrs Kalavathi M B vs M/S Navayug Transport Company on 15 January, 2021

Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                          PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                            AND

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

                 M.F.A.No.4994/2019 (MV)

BETWEEN :
MRS.KALAVATHI.M.B.
W/O BADARI NARAYANA.M.B.,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT No.620, 3RD MAIN, 2ND CROSS
NGEF LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI
BENGALURU-560072.                               ...APPELLANT

                  (BY SRI BHANU.H.M., ADV.)

AND :
1.      M/S. NAVAYUG TRANSPORT COMPANY
        PROP. SURESH.G.C.,
        No.189/44, SHALIMA ARCADE
        10TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN
        BENGALURU-560027.

2.      UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
        COMPANY LD., No.460/20
        1ST FLOOR, 8TH B MAIN ROAD
        [NEXT TO JAIN TEMPLE]
        4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
        BENGALURU-560011.                     ...RESPONDENTS

       (BY SRI S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV. FOR R-2;
 V/O DATED 15.01.2021, NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH.)
                          -2-

      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
05.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.6736/2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU [SCCH-13], PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.

      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                    JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment and

award dated 05.09.2018 passed in MVC No.6736/2016

on the file of the Additional Small Causes Judge and

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru

(SCCH-13) [Tribunal for short].

2. The claimant instituted the petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the

death of M.B.Badari Narayana in the road traffic

accident.

3. It was averred in the claim petition that on

24.08.2016 at about 11.30 a.m., the deceased

M.B.Badari Narayana while riding the motorcycle

bearing registration No.KA-04-HM-9184 near B.B.

Junction, Mysore road, Bengaluru met with the road

traffic accident owing to the actionable negligence of the

driver of milk tanker lorry bearing registration No.KA-

51-A-9702 [offending vehicle]. As a result, he fell down

and the left back wheel of the lorry ran over his body

due to which he died on the spot.

4. The claimant being the widow of the deceased,

has filed the claim petition contending that the deceased

was aged about 59 years and was working as a treasurer

cum operative cameramen in Karnataka Cine Outdoor

Unit Technicians Union and earning Rs.1,975/- per day.

Due to untimely death of the deceased, the claimant is

suffering from mental agony and loss of dependency etc.

On these set of facts and grounds, compensation was

sought by the claimant/appellant.

5. In response to the notice issued, the

respondents appeared through their counsel and

resisted the claim by filing objections, denying the

petition averments. It was contended that the

compensation sought was excessive, arbitrary and

baseless.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were

framed and answered as per the reasons recorded in the

impugned judgment partly allowing the petition

awarding compensation of Rs.8,99,500/- with interest

at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the

petition till its realization.

7. Being aggrieved, the claimant has preferred

the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant

argued that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the

material evidence on record in determining the income

of the deceased, denying the future prospects. It was

submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in deducting

50% of the total income towards the living and personal

expenses of the deceased despite the petition filed by

the widow of the deceased who was entirely dependent

on him for her life. It was further argued that the

multiplier of 7 adopted by the Tribunal is not in

consonance with the settled legal principles of law.

9. Learned counsel for the insurer supporting

the impugned judgment and award submitted that the

deceased was aged about 61 years as per Ex.P10 - the

driving licence and P.M report at Ex.P7. Hence, the age

of the deceased was considered as 61 years as on the

date of the accident and the multiplier of 7 was adopted

in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and Another, reported in

[2009] 6 SCC 121. It was argued that the claimant was

the sole dependent on the deceased deducting 50% of

the income towards the personal and living expenses of

the deceased is justifiable. Accordingly, he sought for

dismissal of the appeal.

10. We have carefully considered the rival

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and perused the material on record.

11. The factum of accident and the death of the

victim - M.B.Badari Narayana in the road traffic

accident in question are not in dispute. Ex.P12 would

clinch the issue that the deceased was working in

Karnataka Cine Out-Door Technicians Union and was

working only for 10 to 12 days in a month with

Rs.1,975/- per day. Considering the same, the income

of the deceased was determined at Rs.19,750/- p.m.,

and Rs.2,37,000/- p.a., which in our view cannot be

faulted with. We confirm the same having regard to the

evidence of PW1 and Ex.P12 which fortifies the same.

12. The contention of the claimant that the

deceased was aged bout 59 years on the date of the

accident and future prospects requires to be awarded

cannot be countenanced for the reason that Ex.P10 -

driving licence and Ex.P7 - P.M report submitted by the

claimant herself would indicate the age of the deceased

as 61 years which cannot be ignored. As such, the

Tribunal has rightly determined the age of the deceased

as 61 years and applied the multiplier of 7. No exception

can be found with the said finding.

13. The Tribunal proceeded to deduct 50%

towards personal and living expenses of the deceased on

the ground that the claimant is the sole dependent

which cannot be approved for the reason that the

deceased was not a bachelor, the claimant was his wife.

It is obvious that a person having a family may be the

wife as the sole dependent would certainly spend less

than what the bachelor would spend for his personal

and living expenses. Hence, we deem it appropriate to

deduct 1/3rd of the income towards the personal and

living expenses of the deceased. Applying the same, loss

of dependency would work out to Rs.11,06,000/-

[19,750 x 12 x 7 x 2/3].

14. In terms of the ruling the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of National Insurance Company Limited

Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16

SCC 680 and New India Assurance Company Limited

v/s. Somwati and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC

644, the claimant is entitled to compensation of

Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads viz.,

Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium;

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-

towards funeral expenses.

15. For the reasons aforesaid, the total

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed

as under:

Sl.No. Particulars Amount [in Rs.] 1. Loss of dependency 11,06,000/- 2. Loss of Spousal Consortium 40,000/- 3. Loss of estate 15,000/- 4. Towards funeral expenses 15,000/- Total 11,76,000/-

Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total

compensation of Rs.11,76,000/- with interest at the

rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition

till the date of realization.

16. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

ii) The total compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is modified and enhanced to

Rs.11,76,000/- as against Rs.8,99,500/-

with interest at the rate of 6% per annum

from the date of the claim petition till its