Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmidevamma vs Smt Lakshmi on 11 July, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.3923 OF 2021(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
W/O. LATE. YALLESH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
2. REKHA M Y
D/O. LATE. YALLESH
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS.
3. RANJITHA M Y
D/O. LATE. YALLESH
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS.
4. RAKESH M Y
S/O. LATE. YALLESH
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS
SINCE APPELLANT Nos. 2 TO 4
ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY
APPELLANT No.1.
2
5. SMT. SHIVAMMA
W/O. MUDLAGIRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
6. SRI. MUDLAGIRAIAH
S/O. LATE. THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT AK COLONY
MARASETTIHALLI VILLAGE
KADABA HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572225.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.TEJAS N., ADV.)
AND
1. SMT LAKSHMI
W/O. RAMESH
AGE MAJOR
R/AT NO. 333, KACHOHALLI
DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE .
2. THE MANAGER
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
KSCMF BUILDING
III FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE-560052
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED
V/O DATED: 11.07.2022 )
3
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
01.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 7113/2019 ON THE
FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY
(SCCH-14), 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:
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 1.4.2021
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru in MVC 7113/2019.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 17.11.2019, when the
deceased Yallesh was riding a motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-42-L-6402 on AK Colony,
Marasettihalli Village, Kadaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, at
that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-41-MB-
7971 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.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 got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P13.
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.19,60,000/- along with interest at
the rate of 7% 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 36 years at the time of the accident
and he was earning Rs.1,000/- per day by working as
Mason. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the
monthly income of the deceased as merely as
Rs.10,000/-.
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.1,000/- per day, 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.
Fourthly, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at
7% 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 judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that deceased Yallesh
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.1,000/- per day. 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 2019, the notional
income of the deceased has to be taken at
Rs.14,000/- p.m.
The Tribunal has rightly considered addition of
40% to the income of the deceased, 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. -v- PRANAY
SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157]. Thus,
the monthly income comes to Rs.19,600/-.
Considering the number of dependents, the Tribunal
has deducted 1/4th 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 about 36 years at the time of the
accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is
'15'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation
of Rs.26,46,000/- (Rs.19,600*12*15*3/4) 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 to 4, children of
the deceased are entitled for compensation of
Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'loss of parental
consortium' and claimant Nos.5 and 6, parents of the
deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-
each 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 26,46,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of Parental 120,000
consortium
Loss of Filial consortium 80,000
Total 29,16,000
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.29,16,000/- as against
Rs.19,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 7%
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
