Karnataka High Court
Muniyappa vs The Manager on 7 July, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.254 OF 2020(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. MUNIYAPPA
S/O. LATE. MUNIHOBALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
2. LAKANNA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O. LATE. MUNIHOBALAIAH
3. BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O. LATE. MUNIHOBALAIAH
ALL ARE R/AT NO. 7
GATTEPALYA, BHIRASHETTAHALLI POST
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRABHUGOUDA B TUMBIGI., ADV.)
2
AND
1. THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
NO. 28, 5TH FLOOR
SENTENARY BUILDING
M G ROAD, BENGALURU 560001
2. SRINIVAS
MAJOR IN AGE
S/O TIMMAPPA
R/AT BINNAMANGALA
ARSHIKER POST
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.LINGARAJ H S., ADV. FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
14.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO. 8117/2016 ON THE
FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT 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 being
aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
14.9.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC 8117/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 27.7.2016 when the
deceased Munihobalaiah was walking from Guttepalya
to Gollahalli Gate on the left side of the road near
Siddaramaiah's chicken farm, at that time, a lorry
bearing registration No.KA-13-A-3889, 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
No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written
statement in which the averments made in the
petition were denied.
The respondent No.2 did not appear before the
Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was
placed ex-parte.
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.P14. On behalf of
respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and
got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1. 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.30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6%
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
raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the claimants are major sons of the
deceased. Even though they are not entitled for
compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency',
they are entitled for compensation towards 'loss of
estate'. In support of his contention, he has relied
upon the Division Bench decision of this court passed
in MFA 7318/2016 disposed of on 23.10.2020.
Secondly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ
2782], each of the claimants are entitled for
compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss
of love and affection and consortium'.
Thirdly, considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for
allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has contended that the
claimants are major sons of the deceased and they
have their own source of income for their livelihood
and they are not depending on the income of the
deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not
awarded any compensation for 'loss of dependency'.
Considering the age and avocation of the deceased,
the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and reasonable. Hence, he prays for dismissal of
the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that deceased
Munihobalaiah 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 aged
about 80 years at the time of accident and he was
earning Rs.7,000/- per month. But they have not
produced any documents to prove the income of the
deceased. Considering the evidence of the claimants,
the notional income of the deceased can be taken at
Rs.7,000/- p.m.
The claimants are major sons of the deceased
and they are not depending on the income of the
deceased. Hence, they are not entitled for 'loss of
dependency' and they are entitled for 'loss of estate'.
The Division Bench of this court in MFA 7318/2016
disposed of on 23.10.2020 by following the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company -V- Vinish Jain And Others (2018) 3 SCC
619 has awarded compensation under the head of
'loss of estate' by taking 50% of the income of the
deceased and deducting 50% towards personal
expenses. Therefore, the income of the deceased
comes to Rs.3,500/- p.m. (Rs.7000*50%). The
deceased was aged about 80 years at the time of the
accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is
'5'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation
of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rs.3500*12*5) 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 the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM reported in 2018 ACJ
2782, claimants are entitled for compensation of
Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'loss of parental
consortium'.
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of estate 210,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of parental 120,000
consortium
Total 345,000
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in
part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
The claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.345,000/- as against
Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
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.
In view of the order dated 7.7.2022 passed by
this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest
for the delayed period of 244 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
