Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Smt Jyothi on 9 November, 2021
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.7333 OF 2018(MV)
BETWEEN:
The Branch Manager,
Reliance GIC Ltd.,
No.28, East Wing, 5th floor,
Centernary Building, M.G.Road,
Bangalore-560 001. ... Appellant
(By Sri. Pradeep B., Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt. Jyothi,
W/o Nagarajachari,
Aged about 24 years.
2. Sree. Naveen,
S/o Kalachari,
Aged about 22 years.
3. Sanjay,
S/o Kalachari,
Aged about 20 years,
All are R/at Chandakawadi Village,
Chamarajanagar Taluk-571342.
4. Anil Kumar A.M.,
S/o Muniyappa,
2
R/o No.13, Ajjagondahalli,
Muthsandra Post, Varthur Village,
Hosakote Taluk,
Bangalore South-560 087. ... Respondents
(By Sri. T.P. Srinivasa, Advocate for R1 to R3:
R4 served and unrepresented)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:01.06.2018 passed
in MVC No.5468/2017 on the file of the 5th Additional
Small Causes Judge & 24th ACMM, Member, MACT,
Bengaluru (SCCH-20) awarding compensation of
Rs.15,42,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of
petition till its realization.
This MFA, coming on for hearing, this day, this
Court, 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 Insurance Company
being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.06.2018
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru (SCCH-20) in MVC No.5468/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 08-08-2017 at about 8.15
p.m. the deceased Kavitha was proceeding as a pillion
rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-
53/EL-7737 on Channasandra - Nagondahalli main
road. At that time, a tanker bearing registration
No.KA-53/B-3888 which was being driven in a rash
and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle.
As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the
injuries at the hospital.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section
166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of
the deceased along with interest.
4. On service of summons, the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed
separate written statements in which the averments
made in the petition were denied.
It was pleaded by respondent No.1 that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of
the motorcycle. It was further pleaded that the
liability is subject to terms and conditions of the
policy.
It was pleaded by respondent No.2 that the
compensation claimed by the claimants is on the
higher side. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the
claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to
prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1
and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14.
On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was
examined nor got exhibited any documents. 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.15,42,000/- along with interest at
the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the insurance
company to deposit the compensation amount along
with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been
filed.
6. The learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the claimants are married daughter and
major sons of the deceased and they were not
depending upon the income of the deceased. The
Tribunal instead of awarding compensation under the
head 'loss of estate' has awarded compensation under
the head 'loss of dependency'.
Secondly, in view of the judgment of a Division
Bench of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE
AND OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS
(MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters
disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest
awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. has to be reduced
to 6% p.a. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the claimants has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimants are married
daughter and major sons, they were depending upon
the income of the deceased. The Tribunal after
considering the evidence of the parties has rightly
held that the claimants are entitled for 'loss of
dependency'.
Secondly, the income assessed by the Tribunal
at Rs.9,000/- is on the lower side. Even as per the
guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services
Authority, for the accident of the year 2017, notional
income has to be assessed at Rs.11,000/-.
Thirdly, since the deceased was aged about 39
years at the time of the accident, in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY
SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], the
claimants are entitled for addition of 40% towards
future prospects.
Fourthly, 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, each of the claimants are entitled
for compensation under the head of 'loss of love and
affection and consortium'. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment and award and the original
records.
9. It is not in dispute that Kavitha died in the
road traffic accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
Even though the claimants have claimed that
deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, they
have not produced any document to establish the
same. Therefore, the notional income has to be
assessed as per the guidelines issued by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the
accident has taken place in the year 2017, the
notional income has to be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.
To the aforesaid amount, 40% has to be added on
account of future prospects in view of the law laid
down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
in PRANAY SETHI (supra). Thus, the monthly
income comes to Rs.15,400/-. Even though the
claimants were not depending on the income of the
deceased, they are entitled for compensation under
the head of 'loss of estate'. A Division Bench of this
Court in MFA 7318/2016 disposed of on 23.10.2020
has calculated the 'loss of estate' by taking 50% of
the income of the deceased by following the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY vs. VINISH JAIN AND
OTHERS reported in (2018) 3 SCC 619. It is
appropriate to deduct 50% towards personal expenses
and therefore, the monthly income comes to
Rs.7,700/-. The deceased was aged about 39 years at
the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to
his age group is '15'. Thus, the claimants are entitled
to compensation of Rs.13,86,000/- (Rs.7,700*12*15)
on account of 'loss of estate'.
In addition, the claimants are entitled to
Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'.
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE (supra),
the claimants are entitled for compensation of
Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'loss of love and
affection and consortium'.
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of estate 13,86,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of Parental 1,20,000
consortium
Total 15,21,000
The claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.15,21,000/-.
In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench
of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE
(supra), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal
at 9% p.a. is scalled down to 6% p.a.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the
date of realization, within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the
Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
The amount in deposit before this Court is
ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cm/-
