Karnataka High Court
Smt Ashwathamma vs M/S Transglobal Carriers Pvt Ltd on 6 July, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.5182 OF 2021(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Ashwathamma,
W/o Late. Ramanjanappa,
Aged about 49 years.
2. Naveen Kumar,
S/o Late. Ramanjanappa,
Aged about 29 years.
Hanumakka
W/o Hanumantharayappa,
Since dead on 22.11.2020
By LR's already on record.
All are residing at
Menasi Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District. ... Appellants
(By Sri.K.V.Naik, Advocate)
AND:
1. M/s Transglobal Carries Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.C-16, MIDC WALLI,
Opp. Universal Luggage,
Aurangabad, Mharashtra.
2
2. The Manager,
United India Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office,
5th Floor, Krushi Bhavan,
Nrupathunga Road,
Near Hudson Circle,
Bengaluru-560 027. ... Respondents
(By Sri.Jwala Kumar., Advocate for R2:
Notice to R1 is D/W v/o dated: 06.07.2022)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:23.03.2021 passed
in MVC No. 4983/2018 on the file of the XXII Additional
Small Causes Judge and Additional MACT,
Bengaluru(SCCH-24) partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA, coming on for orders, 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 claimants being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.03.2021 passed
by the XXII Addl. Small Causes and Addl. MACT,
Bangalore (SCCH-24) in MVC No.4983/2018.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 11.07.2018 at about 1.10
p.m. the deceased Ramanjanappa was standing on
the extreme left side at Menasi gate on NH-207 road,
Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru
District. At that time, a container lorry bearing
registration No.KA-34/M-6245 which was being driven
in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the
deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed
to the injuries.
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. The age,
occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It
was pleaded that the petition itself is false and
frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that
the quantum of compensation claimed by the
claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the 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 another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited
documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On behalf of
respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW-1
and RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1
to Ex.R7. 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.10,21,200/- 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 claimants has
contended that the claimants claim that the deceased
was earning Rs.60,000/- per month by working as a
contractor. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking
the monthly income of the deceased as only
Rs.9,000/-. Hence, he prays for enhancement of
compensation.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has raised the following
counter-contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the
deceased was earning Rs.60,000/- per month, the
same is not established by the claimants by producing
documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
Secondly, during the pendency of the
proceedings mother of the deceased who is claimant
No.3 died and there are only two dependents and
Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the income of
the deceased towards personal expenses, instead of
that, 1/3rd has been deducted.
Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence and considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable.
Fourthly, in view of the law laid down by 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. is on the higher side. Hence, he
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment and award.
9. It is not in dispute that deceased
Ramanjanappa died in the road traffic accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver.
The claimants claim that deceased was earning
Rs.60,000/- per month. But they have not produced
any documents to prove the income of the deceased.
In the absence of proof of income, the notional income
has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by
the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the
accident taken place in the year 2018, the notional
income of the deceased has to be taken at
Rs.12,500/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 10% 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 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR
2017 SC 5157. Thus, the monthly income comes to
Rs.13,750/-.
The claimants are wife, son and mother of the
deceased. Since the deceased was married, the
Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income of
the deceased towards personal expenses. Even if
during the pendency of the petition, mother of the
claimant died, it does not make any difference. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KIRTI AND
ANOTHER vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED (Civil Appeal Nos. 19-20/2021
disposed of on 05.01.2021) has held that
subsequent death of the deceased's dependent
mother ought not to be a reason for reduction
of motor accident compensation. Claims and legal
liabilities crystallize at the time of the accident itself,
and changes post thereto ought not to ordinarily
affect pending proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal
has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income of the
deceased towards his personal expenses and
remaining amount, i.e., Rs.9,167/- has to be taken as
his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged
about 55 years at the time of the accident and
multiplier applicable to his age group is '11'. Thus,
the claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.12,10,044/- (Rs.9,167*12*11) on account of 'loss
of dependency' instead of Rs.8,71.200/- awarded by
the Tribunal.
In respect of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal on the other heads is concerned, the same is
just and reasonable.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench
of this Court in JOYEETA BOSE (supra) the
enhanced compensation carries interest @ 6% p.a.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest @ 9%
p.a. (interest @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced
compensation) 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.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cm/-
