Sri.Nagendra vs M/S. Sujala Pipes P Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 2059 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

             M.F.A. NO.3837 OF 2020 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI. NAGENDRA
       S/O LATE M.S. VENUGOPAL
       AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

2.     SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
       W/O LATE M.S. SRIRAMULU
       AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

       BOTH ARE R/AT NO.123
       RACHERUVU VILLAGE
       BAGEPALLI TALUK
       CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
                                        ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K, ADV.)


AND:

1.     M/S. SUJALA PIPES (P) LTD.,
       C-1, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE NANDYAL
       KURNOOL DISTRICT
       REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR.

2.     M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
       BRNACH OFFICE, "BINDU"
       NEAR DOOM LIGH CIRCLE, KOLAR-563101.
                                 2




3.    SMT. VEDAVATHI
      W/O LATE M S VENUGOPAL
      AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

4.    SRI. M V LAKSHMIPATHI
      S/O LATE M S VENUGOPAL
      AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

5.    KUM. M.V. GEETHA
      D/O LATE M S VENUGOPAL
      AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

      RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE
      R/AT SRIRAM NAGAR, CHINTAMANI TOWN
      CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
                                       ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADV., FOR R2
V/O DTD:25/01/2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W
R3, R4 & R5 SERVED)
                             ---

      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.09.2018 PASSED

IN MVC NO.73/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR

CIVL JUDGE AND MACT, CHICKBALLAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING

THE   CLAIM    PETITION   FOR   COMPENSATION    AND    SEEKING

ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.


      THIS    M.F.A.   COMING   ON   FOR   ORDERS,   THIS   DAY,

ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                3



                           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 against the judgment dated

20.09.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in

MVC No.73/2015, seeking enhancement of compensation.

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

stated are that on 18.01.2015 deceased M.S.Venugopal was

proceeding towards Racheruvu Village of Bagepalli Taluk

from Chintamani town on Bajaj Discover Motor cycle bearing

registration No.KA-40 S-777. At about 1.30 p.m., when he

reached near Byrasandra cross on Chintamani-Chelur road,

Chintamani taluk, a Swaraz Mazda vehicle bearing

registration No.AP-21 W-7414 which was being driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the

motor cycle of the deceased. Due to the impact of the

accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and

eventually succumbed to the same.

3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under

Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground

that the accident took place solely on account of rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the Swaraz Mazda vehicle.

It was further pleaded that the deceased was aged about 42

years at the time of accident and was employed as a driver

and was earning a salary of Rs.25,000/- approximately.

Accordingly, compensation to the extent of Rs.30,00,000/-

along with interest was claimed.

4. The respondent No.1 did not appear and was

proceeded exparte. Respondent No.2 filed objections in

which inter alia it was pleaded that the vehicle was plied in

breach of terms and conditions of the policy and therefore,

respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. It

was further pleaded that there is no compliance of provisions

of Section 158(6) of the Act and the amount of compensation

claimed by the claimants is excessive and exorbitant.

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.5 Lakshmidevamma as PW-1 and

Vedavathi as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely

Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. The respondents neither examined any

witness nor produced any documents. 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 Swaraz Mazda by its driver. It was further held that

the claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of

Rs.11,68,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

from the date of petition till the date of realisation. In the

aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the

Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the notional income of the

deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m. and in not adding any amount

on account of future prospects. It is further submitted that

the amount awarded under other heads also deserves to be

enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

Insurance Company submitted that the amount of

compensation awarded by the Claims 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 deceased was aged about 42 years at the

time of accident and was employed as a driver. The

claimants have not adduced any evidence with regard to the

income of the deceased. Therefore, his income has to be

assessed as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State

Legal Services Authority. Taking into account the year of

accident, the notional income of the deceased is assessed at

Rs.9,000/- p.m. The number of dependents are 5 and

therefore, 1/4th has to be deducted on account of the

personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the monthly

dependency comes to Rs.6,750/-. To the aforesaid amount,

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, 25% of the amount has to be added on account of

future prospects. Thus, the monthly dependency comes to

Rs.8,438/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased

which was 42 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of

'14' has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held

entitled to Rs.14,17,584/- (Rs.8,438 x 12 x 14) on account of

loss of dependency.

8. 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.'

AIR 2020 SC 3076 each of the claimants are entitled to a

sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss

of 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.16,47,584/-. The enhanced

compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the

date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount

of compensation excluding the period of delay caused in filing

the appeal.

To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the

Claims Tribunal is modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV