Smt Chandramma vs Rafeeq M
2021 Latest Caselaw 2031 Kant

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2021

                        PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                             AND

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

             M.F.A. NO.703 OF 2021 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

1.     SMT. CHANDRAMMA
       W/O LATE KRISHNANAYAKA
       AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

2.     SANDEEP K
       S/O LATE KRISHNANAYAKA
       AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

3.     SANTHOSHA
       S/O LATE KRISHNANAYAKA
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

4.     JAVARANAYAKA
       S/O LATE RAMANAYAKA
       AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.
       ALL ARE R/AT HANDIGUDDAKAVAL
       BYLAKUPPA VILLAGE
       PERIYAPATNA TALUK
       MYSURU DISTRICT.
                                      ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     RAFEEQ .M
       S/O M.S. MOHAMMED
       AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
                                2



      R/AT DODDAHONURU VILLAGE
      BYLAKUPPA POST, PERRIYAPTNA TALUK
      MYSURU DISTRICT
      (DRIVER OF AUTO KA-12-B 739).

2.    DARMAPPA
      S/O RAMESHA
      AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
      R/AT 14, HANGALU VILLAGE AND POST
      SOMWARPET TALUK
      KODAGU DISTRICT
      (OWNER OF AUTO KA-12 B 739).

3.    THE MANAGER
      SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
      RECO, SEETHAPURA, JAIPUR
      RAJASTHAN
      BRANCH OFFICE AT NEW KANTHRAJA URS ROAD
      OPP. BGS APOLLO HOSPITAL
      KUVEMPURNAGARA
      MYSURURU 570023.
      (INSURER OF AUTO KA-12-B 739).
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADV., FOR R3
V/O DTD:25.03.2021 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 D/W)
                           ---

      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.12.2019 PASSED
IN MVC NO.861/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVL JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE   CLAIM   PETITION   FOR   COMPENSATION   AND   SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.


      THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE 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 against the judgment dated

13.12.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in

MVC No.861/2016 seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly

stated are that on 25.06.2016 deceased Krishnanayaka was

proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-45

U-8309 along with his son who was the pillion rider, towards

his village. When they reached Hanigudda Kawal Kolli,

Bylakuppe Village, Periyapatna Taluk, at that time, an

autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-12 B-739 which was

being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,

dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result

of the impact of the aforesaid accident, deceased sustained

grievous injuries and eventually succumbed to the same.

3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under

Section 166 of the Act inter alia on the ground that the

accident has taken place solely on account of rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the autorickshaw. It was

further pleaded that the deceased was working as a Coolie

and used to earn Rs.15,000/- p.m. The claimants claimed

compensation to the extent of Rs.48,00,000/- along with

interest at the rate of 12% p.a.

4. The Insurance Company filed written statement in

which inter alia it was denied that the accident has taken

place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

autorickshaw. It was further pleaded that the accident took

place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the bike namely the deceased. It was also pleaded that the

compensation as well as the interest 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 one Sandeep K as PW-2 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P30. The respondents examined one

Ananda N. as RW-1 and Rafeeq M as RW-2 and got marked

documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8. The Claims Tribunal, by the

impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took

place on account of rash and negligent driving of the

autorickshaw by its driver. In MVC No.861/2016 from which

this appeal arises, the Claims Tribunal held that the

claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.9,88,000/- along with

interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till

the date of realisation. In the aforesaid factual background,

this appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the

Tribunal grossly erred in treating the income of the deceased

at Rs.6,000/- p.m. and the same ought to have been treated

as Rs.9,500/- p.m. and 25% ought to have been added to

the income of the deceased on account of future prospects.

It is further submitted that the amount awarded under

various other heads including loss of consortium is on the

lower side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

Insurance Company submitted that the amount awarded by

the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for

any interference in this 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. The

deceased, at the time of accident, was aged 48 years and

was employed as a Coolie. However, no evidence has been

adduced with regard to the income of the deceased.

Therefore, the income has to be assessed as per the chart

prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

Since the accident has taken place in the year 2016, monthly

income has to be assessed at Rs.9,500/-. 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, 25% of the amount has to be added on

account of future prospects. Thus, the income comes to

Rs.11,875/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, 1/4th has to be

deducted towards personal expenses as the number of

dependants are 4 and therefore, the monthly dependency

comes to Rs.8,906/-. Taking into account the age of the

deceased which was 48 years at the time of accident, the

multiplier of '13' has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants

are held entitled to Rs.13,89,336/- (Rs.8,906 x 12 x 13) 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.'

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.1,60,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to

Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral

expenses. Further, the amount of compensation awarded by

the Claims Tribunal under other heads is maintained. Thus,

the claimants are held entitled to enhanced compensation of

Rs.5,91,336/-. The aforesaid enhanced 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 partly allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV