Karnataka High Court
Smt. Ademma vs Sri. Ravi Sanjay Kumar M on 8 July, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.709 OF 2020(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ADEMMA
W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2. SRI PURUSHOTHAM M
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
3. SRI VISHWANATH M
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
4. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA
W/O LATE SUBBAIAH
NOW AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MATTAKANNASANDRA VILLAGE & POST
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADV.)
2
AND:
1. SRI. RAVI SANJAY KUMAR M
S/O M MUNIVENATAKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 274/1
2ND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS
2ND MAINM, 2ND BLOCK
CHENGAIAH LAYOUT
THAGARAJA NAGARA
BENGALURU - 560028.
2. M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE NO 28
5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
CENTENARY BUILDING
M G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001
BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI S., SAMPRATHI, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 08.07.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
21.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.7683/2017 ON THE FILE
OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SCJ AND XIX ACMM, MEMBER,
MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-23), 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 dated 21.12.2018 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in
MVC No.7683/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 13.11.2017 at about 09.45
A.M., when the deceased-Munivenkatappa was
proceeding as a pillion rider in two wheeler bearing
Registration No. KA-07-S-1384, at that time, the rider
of another two wheeler bearing Registration No.KA-
05-HP-6100 rode the same in a rash and negligent
manner, at Dalasanur Gate, Srinivasapura-Kolar road,
Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District dashed against two
wheeler bearing Registration No.KA-07-S-1384. 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.2 appeared through counsel and 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 further pleaded
that the quantum of compensation claimed by the
claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the petition.
The respondent No.1 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 got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17.
On behalf of respondents, two witnesses were
examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and got exhibited
documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R5. The Claims
Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held
that the accident took place on account of rash and
negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider, 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.9,61,000/- 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 claim that the deceased
was aged about 50 years at the time of the accident
and he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by
working as a mason and from agricultural work. But
the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly
income of the deceased as merely as Rs.9,000/-.
Secondly, as per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND
OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in case the deceased
was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of
10% of the established income towards 'future
prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased
was aged between the age group of 50-60 years. The
same may be considered.
Thirdly, 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'.
Fourthly, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the conventional heads 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 raised the following
counter-contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the
deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- 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, since the claimants have not
established the income of the deceased, they are not
entitled for compensation towards 'future prospects'.
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. Hence, he prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that Munivenkatappa
died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash
and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its
rider bearing Registration No.KA-05-HP-6100.
The claimants claim that deceased was earning
Rs.25,000/- 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.
Since the deceased was aged about 52 years as
on the date of the accident, 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 'PRANAY SETHI' (supra).
Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.12,100/-.
Since there are four dependents, it is appropriate to
deduct 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards
personal expenses and therefore, the monthly income
comes to Rs.9,075/-. The deceased was aged about
52 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.11,97,900/- (Rs.9,075*12*11) on account of 'loss
of dependency'.
In addition, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of
estate' and compensation of 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'
(supra), claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is
entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the
head of 'loss of spousal consortium', claimant Nos.2
and 3, children of the deceased are entitled for
compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of
'loss of parental consortium' and claimant No.4,
mother of the deceased is entitled for compensation of
Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of filial
consortium' .
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 11,97,900
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of Parental 80,000
consortium
Loss of Filial consortium 40,000
Total 13,87,900
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.13,87,900/- as against
Rs.9,61,000/- 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 08.07.2022 passed by
this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest
for the delayed period of 292 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA/-
