Siddaiah vs Ananda Krishna B C
2021 Latest Caselaw 2067 Kant

                            1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 1ST OF JUNE 2021

                        PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

             M.F.A. NO.8684 OF 2018 (MV-D)


BETWEEN:
SIDDAIAH
S/O.CHOWDAIAH
DEAD BY HIS LR'S

  1. VASANTHA
     D/O.LATE SIDDAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
  2. DEVAMMA
     W/O.SIDDAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
      BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
      HONGAHALLI VILLAGE (HULIYAMMANAGUDI)
      KASABA HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK - 571 111
                                       ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHARATH S.GOWDA, ADVOCATE)


AND:

  1.   ANANDA KRISHNA B.C
       S/O.B.K.CHINNANNA
       AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
       NO.17, 1ST FLOOR, NEW BINNAMANGALA
                             2



       O.M.ROAD, INDRANAGARA
       BENGALURU - 560 038

  2.   SABU SHUMSUDEEN
       S/O.SHAMSUDEEN H
       AGED MAJOR
       NO.70, NEST FERNS CITY
       DODDA NEKUNDI, MARTHALLI
       BENGALURU - 560 037

  3.   IFFCA-TOKIO GEN.INS,CO,LTD
       KSCMF BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR
       3RD BLOCK, NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
       BENGALURU - 560 052              . RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
                          ---

      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.05.2018 PASSED
IN MVC NO.269/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
& JMFC & MACT, GUNDLUPET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION .

    THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR 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) is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement

of the amount of compensation against the judgment

dated 24.05.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 13.02.2016, when the

deceased Prakasha was proceeding on his motor bike on

Gundlupet - Calicut Road, a Innova car bearing

Registration No.KA-51-MB-4634, which was being driven

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

the opposite direction and dashed against the motor

bike of 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 25 years

at the time of accident and was doing mason work and

was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. It was

further pleaded that accident took place solely on

account of rash and negligent driving of the Innova car

by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the

tune of Rs.1,31,50,000/- along with interest.

4. The Insurance Company filed written

statement stating that the respondent No.1 - driver was

not holding effective driving license to drive the

offending vehicle at the time of accident and as such

committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy.

It was further pleaded that the jurisdictional police have

not forwarded the relevant documents to the insurer

within thirty days as required under Section 158(6) of M

V Act. Hence, the Insurance Company prayed for

dismissal of the claim petition.

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 and another witness i.e. Venkatesh s/o

Marisiddaiah was examined as PW2 and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The respondents

neither adduced any oral evidence nor 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 Innova car

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.10,88,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed

seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted

that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the

income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- 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 further submitted that the Tribunal has

erred in not making an addition to the tune of 40% 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 further 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. On the other hand, learned

counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that no

evidence has been adduced by the claimants 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.7,000/- 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.

8. The only question which arises for our

consideration in this appeal is with regard to the

quantum of compensation.

9. Admittedly, the claimants have not produced

any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased.

It is also not in dispute that deceased at the time of

accident was aged about 25 years and worked as Mason.

10. The claimants examined PW2 - Venkatesh to

substantiate their claimant that the deceased was

working as Mason and he was paid wages of Rs.1,000/-

per day with meal and break fast. However, no

documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the

said claim. In the absence of proof of income, the

Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at

Rs.7,000/- per month instead of Rs.9,500/- per month,

which is normally assessed by this Court and the Lok

Adalath while deciding the claims in the year 2016. 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. Thus, the

monthly income comes to Rs.13,300/-. Since, the

number of dependents are two, therefore, 50% of the

amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses

and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to

Rs.6,650/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased

who was 25 years at the time of accident, the multiplier

of '18' has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are

held entitled to (Rs.9,500/- + 40% = 13,300/- x 12 x 18

x 50%) i.e. Rs.14,36,400/- on account of loss of

dependency.

11. 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.80,000/-. 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 head 'medical

expenses' is maintained. Thus, in all, the claimants are

held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.15,46,400/-.

Since the accident is of the year 2016, the prevailing

rate of interest for the year 2016 in respect of fixed

deposits for one year in nationalized banks being 6%,

the aforesaid amounts of 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. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment

passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkm