Karnataka High Court
Smt V.S.Meena vs Chaithra K.S. @ Chaitrasri 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.8714 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT.V.S.MEENA
W/O LATE N.S. SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
2 . N.S. SONY
D/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.160
2ND CROSS, SOUTH ANIKETHAN ROAD
KUVEMPUNAGARA
MYSORE 570 023
AND ALSO R/AT CHANNENAHALLI
RAMANAGARA TOWN-562 130.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. TEJAS N., ADV.)
AND
1. CHAITHRA K.S. @ CHAITRASRI
W/O NARENDRA D
2
NO.33, HANUMANTHANAGARA
RAMANAGARA TOWN 562 160.
2. THE MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM GEN. INS.
CO. LTD., M.G. ROAD
RAMANAGARA TOWN 562 159.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 10.03.2020)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED. 14.05.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.62/2017, ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND MACT,
RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE 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 and award dated
14.5.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and CJM
and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanagaram in
MVC 62/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 4.11.2016, when the
deceased N.S.Siddappa along with friends were
proceeding in car bearing registration No.KA-42-M-
4659 near Jalamangala-Ramanagara Road,
Kumbarahalli, at that time, a Tractor-Trailer bearing
registration No.KA-42-T-6188 and 6189 which was
being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed
against the car. 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 respondents
appeared through their respective counsel and filed
written statements in which the averments made in
the petition were denied.
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 and got
exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On
behalf of respondents, neither any witness was
examined nor any document was produced. 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.532,000/- 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 65 years at the time of the accident
and he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month by doing
agricultural and sericulturist and produced income tax
returns of the deceased for the years 2013-14 and
2014-15. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the
monthly income of the deceased as merely as
Rs.11,000/-.
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 raised the following
counter-contentions:
Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased
was earning Rs.50,000/- per month and produced
income tax returns of the deceased for the years
2013-14 and 2014-15. But they have not produced
the income tax returns for the year 2015-16.
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.
Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the original records.
9. It is not in dispute that deceased
N.S.Siddappa 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 65 years and he was earning Rs.50,000/- per
month and produced income tax returns of the
deceased for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The
gross total income for the years 2013-13 is
Rs.181,580/- and for the year 2013-15, the gross
total income is Rs.204,580/-. But they have not
produced the income tax return for the year 2015-16.
By considering the average gross total income of the
deceased, the monthly income of the deceased can be
safely taken at Rs.14,000/-.
The Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the
income of the deceased towards personal expenses
and remaining amount has been taken as his
contribution to the family. The deceased was aged
about 65 years at the time of the accident and
multiplier applicable to his age group is '7'. Thus, the
claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.588,000/- (Rs.14,000*12*7*50%) 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'. Claimant No.1, wife of the
deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-
under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE' (supra), claimant No.2, daughter of the
deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-
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 dependency 588,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of Parental 40,000
consortium
Total 698,000
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.698,000/- as against
Rs.532,000/- 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.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
