Karnataka High Court
Smt Shylaja H V vs Sri K Mohan Lal on 25 March, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
M.F.A. NO.782 OF 2019 (MV-D)
C/W
M.F.A. NO.10568 OF 2018 (MV-D)
M.F.A. NO.782 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHYLAJA H V
W/O SRI. MOHAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
2. SRI. MOHAN KUMAR RAJU RAO
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT HAGARE VILLAGE
MADIHALLI HOBLI, BELURU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 115.
.... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C.R. GOPALASWAMY, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. K. MOHAN LAL
S/O SRI. SHIVARANJI
MAJOR, R/AT GANAPATHI CIRCLE
CHANNAGIRI
DHAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213.
2
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
SHIVANARADAMUNI PLAZA
MCCB BLOCK, DENTAL COLLEGE ROAD
PB NO.74, DAVANAGERE
REPT. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
MANJUNATHA COMPLEX
OLD BUS STAND ROAD
HASSAN 573201.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. B.A. RAMAKRISHNA, ADV., FOR R2
R1 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
---
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.08.2018 PASSED
IN MVC NO.971/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MACT, BELUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
M.F.A. NO.10568 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SHIVANARADAMUNI PLAZA
MCC BLOCK, DENTAL COLLEGE ROAD
P B NO.74, DAVANAGERE
REPRESENTED BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MANJUNATHA COMPLEX
OLD BUS STAND ROAD, HASSAN-573201
NOW BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144
SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M G ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
.... APPELLANT
(BY MR. B.A. RAMAKRISHNA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SMT. SHYLAJ H V
W/O MOHANKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
3
2. SRI. MOHANKUMAR
S/O RAJURAO
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
BOTH R/O. HAGARE VILLAGE
MADIHALLI HOBLI
BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573115.
3. K. MOHANLAL
S/O SHIVARANJI
MAJOR BY AGE
GANAPATHI CIRCLE
CHANNAGIRI
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. C.R. GOPALASWAMY, ADV., FOR R1 & R2
MR. SIDDANOOR VISHWANATHA, ADV., FOR R3)
---
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.08.2018 PASSED
IN MVC NO.971/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
MACT, BELUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.13,10,000/-
WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
THESE M.F.As. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA No.782/2019 has been filed by the claimants
whereas MFA No.10568/2018 has been filed by the Insurance
Company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) against
the judgment dated 30.08.2018 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal.
Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident
and the same judgment, they were heard together and are
being decided by this common judgment.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that the deceased Manoj was riding the motor bike
bearing registration No.KA-46 E-7973 on 30.11.2016 at
about 11.45 a.m. At that time, one Innova car bearing
registration No.KA-17 P-5895 which was being driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the
vehicle of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid
accident, deceased sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed to the same.
3. The claimants namely the parents filed a petition
under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the
ground that the accident took place solely on account of the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. It was
further pleaded that the deceased Manoj was prosecuting his
ITI training course and on account of the untimely demise of
their son, they have been deprived of their source of
livelihood. The claimants accordingly claimed compensation
to the extent of Rs.36,00,000/- along with interest. The
Insurance Company filed statement of objection, in which
inter alia, the issuance of insurance policy in respect of the
offending car was admitted and it was further admitted that
the policy was in force at the time of accident. It was further
pleaded that the accident took place on account of negligence
on the part of the deceased as he was a minor and was not
entitled to drive the bike. It was further pleaded that 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 claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1
and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The
respondents examined one Ganapathi as RW-1, and got
marked documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. 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 car by its driver. It was further held, that the
claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of
Rs.13,10,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
from the date of petition till the date of realisation. In the
aforesaid factual background, these appeals have been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the
Tribunal grossly erred in treating the income of the deceased
at Rs.5,000/-. It is further submitted that in view of the
decision of the Supreme Court in 'V.MEKALA Vs.
M.MALATHI AND ANR.' (2014) 11 SCC 178, the Tribunal
ought to have assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.10,000/- p.m.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal ought to
have appreciated that the deceased, at the time of accident,
was a minor and therefore, he was not even holding a valid
driving licence. The Tribunal ought to have held that the
accident has taken place on account of the negligence of the
deceased as well as the driver of the car. It is further
submitted that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the
yearly income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- in view of the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in 'KISHAN GOPAL &
ANR. Vs. LALA & ANR.' 2013 AIR SCW 5037 and that the
amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal
under the conventional heads is on the higher side.
8. We have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
The Supreme Court in 'MOHAMMED SIDDIQUE Vs.
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY', AIR 2020 SC 520
has held that merely because a person may not have a valid
driving licence, that by itself does not lead to an inference
that the concerned person has contributed in causing the
accident in any manner even though it may be an offence
under the law. In the instant case, the Insurance Company
has not adduced any evidence of any eye witness to prove
the manner of accident. The claimant in a motor accident
case is required to prove the accident on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities (See: 'MANGALA RAM VS.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.', (2018) 5 SCC 656). The
Tribunal, on the basis of preponderance of evidence on
record, has rightly held that the accident took place on
account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
car and we affirm the finding of the Tribunal.
9. Now we may advert to the quantum of
compensation. The Supreme Court in KISHAN GOPAL,
supra, has taken the income of a minor boy aged about 16
years as Rs.40,000/- per annum. In the case of MEKALA,
supra, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case of brilliant
student holding first rank in the school. Therefore, in the
facts of that case, the Supreme Court held that the monthly
income of the injured claimant was assessed at Rs.10,000/-.
In the instant case, admittedly, there is no evidence on
record to prove that the deceased was a brilliant student
holding first rank in school. Therefore, in the fact situation of
the case and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in
KISHAN GOPAL, supra, the yearly income of the deceased
is assessed at Rs.40,000/-. 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, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects.
Thus, the income comes to Rs.56,000/-. Out of the aforesaid
amount, 1/2 has to be deducted towards personal expenses
as the deceased was a bachelor and therefore, the monthly
dependency comes to Rs.28,000/-. Taking into account the
age of the deceased which was 16 years at the time of
accident, the multiplier of '18' has to be adopted. Therefore,
the claimants are held entitled to Rs.5,04,000/- (Rs.28,000
x 18) on account of loss of dependency.
10. 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.80,000/-. 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.6,14,000/-. The aforesaid amount
shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of
the petition till the realization of the amount of
compensation. Amount in deposit, if any is transmitted to
the Claims Tribunal.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the
Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
