Smt Leelavathi vs Sri Lokesh R
2022 Latest Caselaw 10478 Kant

                               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.5273 OF 2020(MV)

BETWEEN:

1.     Smt. Leelavathi,
       W/o Late Nanjegowda,
       Aged about 42 years.

2.     Anusha,
       D/o Late Nanjegowda,
       Aged about 18 years.

       Both are R/o E-123/5, 7th Cross,
       Sanjeevininagar, Hegganahalli,
       Bengaluru-560 091.

3.     Smt. Kempa Asaramma,
       W/o Ningappa,
       Aged about 72 years,
       R/O. Ungra Village,
       Amruthur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk,
       Tumkur District-572 111.           ... Appellants

(By Sri.Chandrashekaraiah B., Advocate)

AND:

1.     Sri. Lokesh R.,
       S/o Ramanna P.K.
       Resident of
       Maruthi Enterprises,
       Andrahalli Main Road,
                             2



     Peenya 2nd Stage
     Bangalore-560 091.

2.   Universal Sompo General
     Insurance Company Ltd.,
     Unit-401, 4th Floor,
     Sangham Complex,
     No.127, Anderi Kuria Road,
     Anderi (EAST)
     Mumbai-400049.                     ... Respondents

(By Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand., Advocate for R2:
Notice to R1 is D/W v/o dated: 12.04.2022)

      This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:30.09.2019 passed
in MVC No.3146/2018 on the file of the VI Additional
Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACMM, Bengaluru SCCH-
2, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and
seeking enhancement of compensation.

      This MFA, coming on for admission, 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 30.09.2019 passed

by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal,

Bengaluru (SCCH-2) in MVC No.3146/2018.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 18.12.2017 at about 2.45

p.m., the deceased-Nanjegowda was proceeding as an

inmate in a car bearing registration No.KA-01/MJ-

1053 from Yediyur towards Nelamangala side along

with other inmates. When they reached near

Gavimata Bridge, NH-75 road, Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal

Taluk, at that time, the driver of the said car drove

the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent

manner, lost control over the vehicle and capsize the

car. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the

deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed

to the injuries at the spot.

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 have appeared through counsel and

respondent No.2 filed written statement 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 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 got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8.

On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was

examined nor got exhibited 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.14,10,000/- 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. Sri Chandrashekaraiah B., the learned

counsel for the claimants has contended that the

claimants claim that at the time of the accident

deceased was earning Rs.24,000/- per month by

working in a Tiles Factory. But the Tribunal is not

justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased

as merely as Rs.9,000/-. Hence, he sought for

enhancement of compensation.

7. On the other hand, Sri S.V.Hegde

Mulkhund, 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.24,000/- 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, 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.

Thirdly, in view of judgment of the 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 claimants are entitled for 6%

interest but the Tribunal has granted 9% interest

which 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

Nanjegowda 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.24,000/- 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 2017, the notional

income of the deceased has to be taken at

Rs.11,000/- p.m.

To the aforesaid income, Tribunal has rightly

considered addition of 25% 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/-. Since there are 3 dependents, the

Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income of

the deceased towards personal expenses and

remaining amount, i.e, Rs.9,167/- has to be taken as

his contribution to the family. At the time of the

accident deceased was aged about 45 years and

multiplier applicable to his age group is '14'. Thus,

the claimants are entitled to compensation of

Rs.15,40,056/- (Rs.9,167*12*14) on account of 'loss

of dependency' instead of Rs.12,60,000/- 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/-