Karnataka High Court
Manjula vs Muneer 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.5499 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. MANJULA
W/O LATE SHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
2. SUJAY
S/O LATE SHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.
3. SUPREETH
S/O LATE SHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT HALEKOPPALU VILLAGE
DUDDA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ABHIJITH M.M., ADV.)
AND
1. MUNEER
S/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
2
R/AT BEHIND JAIL SRINAGAR
HASSAN TOWN & DISTRICT - 5.
2. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
E/8 EPIP SEETHAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA
JAIPURA RAJASTHANA
REP BY ITS MANAGER
BOWRING HOSPITAL
SHIVAJINAGAR,BANGALORE - 57
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 26.10.2021)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED16.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1658/2018 ON
THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING 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
16.4.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Hassan in MVC 1658/2018.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 15.6.2018 when the
deceased Shekhar had traveled in Tata Ace bearing
No.KA-15-A-1208 and after unloading the welding
materials from the said vehicle, was standing near
Dandiganahalli gate on Bangalore-Mangalore Road, at
that time, the driver of said vehicle drove the same in
a rash and negligent manner, lost control 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.2 appeared through counsel and filed written
statement in which the averments made in the
petition were denied.
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 another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited
documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. 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.10,00,000/- 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. 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.30,000/- per month by
working as welder. But the Tribunal is not justified in
taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely
as Rs.9,000/-.
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, even though the claimants claim that the
deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- 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'.
However, since the deceased was aged more than 50
years, the Tribunal instead of considering 10% of the
income towards future prospects has wrongly taken
15%.
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, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at
9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher
side. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that deceased Shekhar
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.30,000/- 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.
The deceased was aged between 51 to 55 years.
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.13,750/-. Since there are 3
dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/3rd of the
income of the deceased towards personal expenses
and remaining amount has to be taken as his
contribution to the family. The deceased was aged
between 51 to 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.12,10,000/- (Rs.13,750*12*11*2/3) 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 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'.
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 12,10,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of Parental 80,000
consortium
Total 13,60,000
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.13,60,000/- as against
Rs.10,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 9%
p.a. (enhanced amount shall carry 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
