Karnataka High Court
Manjula vs Dikkar Rao Bagawan Patil on 17 March, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
M.F.A. NO.4843 OF 2016 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. MANJULA
W/O LATE LOKESHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
2. VARSHA
D/O LATE LOKESHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.
3. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
S/O KALASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
4. PUTTANANJAMMA
W/O CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
2ND APPELLANT IS MINOR
REP. BY HER MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST APPELLANT.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS AT
KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE
KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK-572 101.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K. SHANTHARAJ, ADV.,)
2
AND:
1. DIKKAR RAO BAGAWAN PATIL
S/O BAGAVAN BAHU PATIL
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING OF FLAT NO.B-80
M I D C ISLAMPUR VALVA
SANGLI TALUK
MAHARASHTRA STATE.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
NO.290, SMART MANSION
VAKHAR BHAG, SANGLI
NOW REP. THE REGIONAL MANAGER
REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.5 AND 6TH FLOOR
KRUSHI BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADV., FOR R2
V/O DTD:28-01-2020 R1 NOTICE D/W)
---
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.11.2005 PASSED
IN MVC NO.352/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN.), MACT, TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE 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 claimants seeking
enhancement of the amount of compensation against
the judgment dated 03.09.2005 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the
claims tribunal' for short).
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that deceased Lokeshaiah was
traveling as a pillion rider in a TVS Moped on 03.04.2004
at about 9.00 a.m., which was being driven by one
Ganesh from Kora towards Kattigenahalli on National
Highway-4, at that time a car bearing registration
No.MH10/S2379, which was being driven by its rider in a
rash and negligent manner dashed against the moped,
in which the deceased was traveling. As a result of the
aforesaid accident, the deceased fell down and sustained
injuries and eventually succumbed to the injuries.
3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition
under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on
the ground that the deceased was aged about 26 years
at the time of accident and was employed as Assistant in
Bhyrava Online Lucky Point at Ashoka Road, Tumkur and
was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. It was
further pleaded that the accident took place on account
of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car.
Accordingly, compensation to an extent of
Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest was claimed.
4. The respondent No.1 did not appear and was
proceeded exparte. The respondent No.2-insurance
contested the claim in which inter alia it was pleaded
that the offending vehicle was insured at the time of
accident. It was further pleaded that the liability of the
Insurance Company is subject to the terms and
conditions of the police. The manner of the accident as
well as the age and avocation of the deceased was
denied. It was further pleaded that the claim of the
claimants is 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.3 examined
himself as PW-1 and Shanthilal B.Jain as PW2 and got
exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. 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 car by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the
claimants are entitled to a compensation of
Rs.4,23,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal
has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the claimant while
referring to the statement of the employer PW2
submitted that the deceased was drawing Rs.6,000/- per
month and therefore, the tribunal erred in treating the
income at Rs.3,000/- per month. It is further submitted
that the future prospects ought to have been added to
the income of the deceased and the amount awarded
under the conventional heads is on the lower side. On
the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company submitted that there is no documentary
evidence on record to prove the income of the deceased
and therefore, the monthly income of the deceased
should be assessed at Rs.3,500/- per month. It is
further submitted that the appellants are not entitled to
interest for the delay caused in filing the appeal.
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 26 years at the time of accident. There
is no documentary evidence on record with regard to
income of the deceased. Therefore, taking into account
the year of the accident and in view of the claim made
by the claimants themselves that the deceased used to
earn Rs.5,000/- per month, we assess the income of the
deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month. 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.4,900/-. Since, the number of dependents
is 4, therefore, 1/4th of the amount has to be deducted
towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly
dependency comes to Rs.3,675/-. Taking into account
the age of the deceased which was 26 years at the time
of accident, the multiplier of '17' has to be adopted.
Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to
(Rs.3,675x12x17) i.e., Rs.7,49,700/- 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.' 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.1,60,000/-. 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.9,39,700/-.
Needless to state that the enhanced amount of
compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till the
payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment
passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
ss
