Karnataka High Court
Kalapally Krishna And Ors vs The Depot Manager on 29 July, 2021
Author: Nataraj Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
MFA No.202236/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN
1. KALAPALLY KRISHNA S/O PENTAIAH,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: NIL
2. K.PUSHPA W/O KRISHNA
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
3. K.RAJITHA D/O KRISHNA
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/AT SINGUR, PULKAL MANDAL,
MEDAK DIST., NOW R/AT NEAR WATER TANK,
SAIDAPUR, TQ. & DIST. YADGIRI
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE DEPOT MANAGER
APSRTC OFFICE, TSRTC BUS DEPOT,
SANGAREDDY, DIST. MEDAK
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.V.DESHMUKH, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING
THAT THIS HON BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.07.2018, PASSED
BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT NO.II YADGIRI,
IN FILE BEARING MVC NO.201/2016 AND ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Senior
Civil Judge and MACT-II, Yadgir dated 21.07.2018 in MVC
No.201/2016.
2. The records disclose that the claimants are the
legal representatives of deceased Shekar, who was aged
22 years and was a painter by profession and earning a
sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is stated that on
01.08.2016, Shekar and his friend were proceeding from
Jogipet to Alladurga on a motorcycle bearing registration
No.AP-29/H-5352. At about 7.15 p.m., the driver of
TSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-29/Z-207 owned by
the respondent (henceforth referred as 'offending vehicle')
drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the motorcycle. As a result, Shekar and his friend
fell down and Shekar died at the spot due to the injuries
sustained. The claimants contended that they were
depending on the deceased and due to his death, they had
lost the bread earner in their family. Therefore, the
claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.30,50,000/-.
3. The claim petition was contested by the
respondent, who denied the accident as well as negligence
on the part of the driver of the bus. The claimant No.1
was examined as PW.1 and he produced Exs.P1 to P4. The
respondent did not adduce any oral evidence or marked
any documentary evidence.
4. Based on the oral and documentary evidence,
the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving by offending vehicle/bus. It
also noticed the age of the deceased and therefore,
considered his notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month
and after deducting 50% towards his personal and living
expenses, awarded the following compensation:
Head Amount
Loss of dependency Rs.6,48,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.50,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
Transportation charges Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.7,33,000/-
5. Being aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal
is filed by the claimants.
6. The learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants contended that the income of the
deceased was a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and the
Tribunal was not justified in treating it at a sum of
Rs.6,000/- per month. He also contended that this Court
in cases referred for settlement at Lok Adalath has fixed
the notional income at Rs.8,750/- per month and
therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the
income at a sum of Rs.8,750/- per month. In addition, he
contended that the Tribunal failed to award future
prospects at the rate of 40% as held by the Apex Court in
the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Further,
he contended that in view of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Magma General Insurance
Company vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and
Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and in the case of
New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Somwati
and Others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644, the claimants
are entitled to loss of filial consortium at the rate of
Rs.40,000/-.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent contended that the Tribunal was justified in
awarding compensation having regard to the fact that
there was no proof regarding income placed by the
claimants before the Tribunal.
8. I have considered the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties.
9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for
the appellants, this Court has fixed the notional income of
a person dying in a road traffic accident at a sum of
Rs.8,750/- per month for the purposes of settlement of
claim at Lok Adalath. There is no reason why the said
notional income should be applied to the present case
having regard to the fact that the accident occurred on
01.08.2016 and the deceased was hardly aged 22 years.
10. In that view of the matter, the income of the
deceased is treated at the rate of Rs.8,750/- per month.
In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (Supra), the loss of future income is
considered at a sum of 40% of the notional income. In
addition, the claimants are entitled to loss of filial
consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each, a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, a sum of Rs.25,000/-
towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/-
towards transportation and other miscellaneous charges.
11. In that view of the matter, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is recalculated as follows:
Head Amount
Loss of dependency Rs.13,23,000/-
(8,750+40% =
12,250/-x12x18x50%)
Loss of filial consortium Rs.1,20,000/-
(40,000 x 3)
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
Transportation charges Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.14,93,000/-
12. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the
claimants is allowed in part and the compensation of
Rs.7,33,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to a
sum of Rs.14,93,000/-.
13. The respondent is liable to pay the
compensation to the claimants along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the
date of claim petition till realization.
The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation within a period of one month from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Srt
