Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lathamma Alias vs Sri. Mohammed Saleem on 26 March, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Kamal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH 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.118 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT LATHAMMA ALIAS
LATHA W/O LATE
MANJUNATH REDDY K.R.,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
2. SMT. ASHA D/O LATE
MANJUNATH REDDY K.R.,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
3. SMT. USHA D/O LATE
MANJUNATHA REDDY K.R.,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
4. HANUMANTHA REDDY
S/O LATE MANJUNATH REDDY K.R.,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.174
DIDDASUDDAVANAHALLI
(ASLIGRAMA), CHITRADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 524. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NARASI REDDY G., FOR ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. SRI. MOHAMMED SALEEM
S/O MOHAMMED ABID
MERCHANT TRANSPORT
KOBRIPET
HOSDURGA(T)
CHITRADURG DISTRICT - 577 526
KARNATAKA.
(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
BEARING NO.KA-16-A-4686)
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, MAGANUR
COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
NEAR BY K.S.R.T.C. BUS
STAND, B.D. ROAD
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
HAVING IT'S REGISTRERED OFFICE AT
RELIANCE CENTER
NO.19, WALCHAND HIRACHAND
MARG, BALLARD ESTATE
MUMBAI - 400 001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, FOR R-2
R-1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 23/01/2021)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:16.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2360/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
M.G.S.KAMAL, 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 seeking
enhancement of the amount of compensation against the
judgment dated 16.04.2016 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (hereafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for
short).
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 04.01.2013 at about 3.30 a.m.,
deceased Manjunath Reddy.K.R and Mallikarjuna, the
pedestrians were standing on the footpath at 'U' turn of
Marappanna Palya, Tumkur to Bengaluru Road for crossing
the road, at that time, a private bus bearing No.KA-
16-A-4868 driven by its driver in a high speed and rash
and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased
Manjunath Reddy and Mallikarjuna. Due to the impact of
the accident, Mallikarjuna died on the spot and Manjunath
Reddy 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 50 years at the
time of accident and that the deceased was engaged in
Flower Business and was also an Agriculturist. He was
getting monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. It was further
pleaded that the accident took place solely on account of
rash and negligent driving of the private bus. The
claimants claimed compensation to the tune of
Rs.27,00,000/- along with interest.
4. On service of summons, Respondent No.1 did
not appear and was placed exparte. Respondent No.2-
Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed
written statement in which the mode and manner of the
accident was denied. However, it was admitted that the
policy was issued in favour of Respondent No.1 in respect
of the offending vehicle and that its liability was subject to
terms and conditions of the policy. It was further
contended that the first respondent had entrusted the
vehicle to the person who was not holding valid and
effective driving licence. Therefore, there was
contravention of terms and conditions of the policy and
that the claimants have falsely implicated the vehicle in
order to get the compensation. The age, avocation and
income of the deceased was also denied.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the
evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1
and another witness Mr.M.D.Rangappa Reddy was
examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely
Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The respondent neither adduced any oral
evidence nor 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 offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of
which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to
the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants
are entitled to a compensation of Rs.9,13,804/- along with
interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim
petition till its realization. Being aggrieved, this appeal has
been filed seeking enhancement of the amount.
6. The learned counsel for the claimants has
raised the following contentions:
Firstly, that the Tribunal erred in determining the
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- though
there was sufficient evidence regarding the income of
deceased to be assessed at Rs.25,000/- p.m.
Secondly, that the Tribunal grossly erred in
deducting 50% from the income of the deceased on the
ground that except the claimant No.1, the other claimants
were not financially depending on the deceased.
Thirdly, that the compensation under the
conventional heads of loss of consortium and funeral
expenses was on the lower side.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company submitted that no documentary
evidence has been adduced by the claimants to prove the
income of the deceased. It was also 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 the
learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.
The only question which arises for our consideration in this
appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
The Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED vs. BIRENDER (2020 SCC
ONLINE SC 28), has held that the legal representatives of
the deceased are entitled to make an application for
compensation in view of Section 166(1)(c) of the Act. It
has further been held that even the major married and
earning sons of the deceased being the legal
representatives have the right to apply for compensation
and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to
consider the application irrespective of the fact whether
the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on
the deceased or not and not to limit the claim towards
conventional heads only. In the instant case, the Tribunal
has held that the Claimant Nos.2 to 4 are not financially
dependent on the deceased and that Claimant No.1 alone
was financially dependant on the deceased. The aforesaid
finding of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in view of the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED supra. Therefore, the
Claimant Nos.2 to 4 are also considered to be dependant
on the income of the deceased.
9. Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any
evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. It is
also not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the age
of the deceased was 50 years. Therefore, the income of
the deceased is to be assessed as per the guidelines issued
by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. Since the
accident is of the year 2013, notional income comes to
Rs.8,000/- p.m. To the aforesaid amount, 25% has to be
added on account of future prospects in view of the law
laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme
Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY
SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157]. Thus, the
monthly income comes to Rs.10,000/-. Since the number
of dependants is four, 1/4th amount has to be deducted
towards the personal expenses and therefore, the monthly
income comes to Rs.7,500/-. Taking into consideration the
age of deceased which was 50 years at the time of
accident, multiplier of '13' has to be adopted. Thus, the
loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,70,000/- (Rs.7,500/- x
12 x 13).
10. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD. -V- NANU RAM reported in 2018 ACJ 2782,
Claimant No.1 being the wife is entitled to Rs.40,000/-
under the head 'spousal consortium' and Claimant Nos.2 to
4 being children are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each on
account of 'loss of consortium and loss of love and
affection'. Thus the claimants are held to be entitled to a
sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. In addition, claimants are entitled
to Rs.30,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and 'funeral
expenses'.
11. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 11,70,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal consortium 40,000
Loss of love and affection 1,20,000
Total 13,60,000
The claimants are thus, in all, held to be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.13,60,000/-. Needless to state that
the aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
payment is made. The Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the compensation amount along with interest
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this judgment.
12. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the
Claims Tribunal is modified.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
bnv
