Karnataka High Court
Navyashree L vs Royal Sundaram Gen Ins Co Ltd on 3 June, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
M.F.A. NO.5430 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. NAVYASHREE L
W/O ARUN KUMAR R
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
2. MAST. KUSHAL GOWDA A
S/O ARUN KUMAR R
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS
(REP. BY APPELLANT NO.1 AS NATURAL GUARDIAN)
3. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O RAMAKRISHNE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
4. RAMAKRISHNE GOWDA
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT D. TUMAKURU
VILLAGE AT POST, HIRESAVE HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATTANA
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ROYAL SUNDARAM GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
BY ITS MANAGER
2
NO.186, GROUND FLOOR
RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX
1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD
WILSON GARDEN
BENGALURU-560 027.
2. DINESH G
S/O LATE GANGAPPA
AGED MAJOR
RESIDING AT NO.53/23
1ST J MAIN, 1ST BLOCK
NAGARABHAVI
BENGALURU-560 072.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI S. SAMPRATHI ADV., FOR R-1)
---
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
27.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.4181/2017, ON THE FILE OF
THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MEMBER,
MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-24), 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) has
been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the
amount of compensation, against the judgment dated
27.07.2018 in MVC. 4181/2017 passed by the XXII Additional
Small Causes Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT'
for short).
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 26.12.2016, the deceased Arun Kumar. R.,
being a Police constable was on duty and was proceeding on
his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02-EL-0831.
When he was standing with his motor cycle on Magadi Main
road, near Bellada Hanumanthappa Cross and giving
instructions to the driver of the lorry which was wrongly
parked at no parking area on the side of the road, at that
time all of a sudden one Tipper Lorry bearing registration
No.KA-41-B-6723 driven by its driver with high speed, in a
rash and negligent manner, came from the Kottige playa
towards Byadarahalli 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 a Police Constable
and was drawing a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. It
was further pleaded that accident took place solely on
account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its
driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune
of Rs.2,00,00,000/- 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 lorry 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 and examined one witness as P.W.2 and
got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. 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 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.43,42,400/- along with interest at
the rate of 8% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal
has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of
compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted
that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the
income of the deceased as Rs.19,7999/- per month
instead of Rs.24,250/- p.m. which was last drawn gross
salary. 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.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
insurance company submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
proper and does not call for any interference.
8. We have considered the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of
the Tipper lorry. The deceased was aged 32 years as on
the date of the accident. The only question which arises
for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the
quantum of compensation.
9. The claimants produced Ex.P.14-Pay Slip and
Ex.P.15-Bank Statement of the deceased which discloses
that the deceased was getting gross salary of
Rs.24,250/-and after deducting Rs.4,436/- he was
getting net salary of Rs.19,779/- p.m. However, the
Tribunal has taken the net salary for the purpose of
determining compensation payable towards loss of
dependency instead of taking the gross salary. Hence,
the gross salary of the deceased at Rs. 24,050/- (after
deducting Rs.200/- towards professional tax) is taken
for awarding compensation under the head loss of
dependency.
10. The deceased was aged 32 years and he was
State Government employee and was paid fixed salary.
In view of decision of the Apex Court in the case of
'NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs.
PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS' AIR 2017 SC 5157
50% of the assessed income is to be added towards
future prospects. Hence, by assessing the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.24,050/- applying
multiplier of '16' deducting 1/4th towards personal
expenses and adding 50% of the income towards future
prospects, the claimants are held entitled to a sum of
Rs.51,94,800/- towards loss of dependency as against
Rs. 42,72,384/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. In view of law 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 AIR 2020 SC 3076
each of the claimant's 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.1,60,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled
to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral
expenses.
12. Thus, in all, the claimants are held entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.10,42,416/- in addition to
Rs.43,42,384/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced
compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till realization.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by
the Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
HR
