Karnataka High Court
Kempamma vs N. Mahantha Reddy on 12 July, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.3536 OF 2022(MV)
BETWEEN:
1 . KEMPAMMA
W/O. LATE HONNEGOWDA
NOW AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
2 . M. H. VANAJAKSHI
D/O. LATE HONNEGOWDA
NOW AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT MUKIKERE
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT
NOW R/AT S.T. SHANKARMURTHY
SIDDESHWARA MESS
15TH CROSS, S.S. PURAM
TUMAKURU-572 102.
3 . ASHA. M. P.
W/O. GANGADHARA
NOW AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT MELLAHALLI
HIRESAVE HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT.
4 . SUDHA
W/O. HEMANTHA
NOW AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
2
R/AT VIGNASANTHE
NONAVINAKERE HOBLI
TIPTUR TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
5 . MANJULA
W/O. MANJEGOWDA. D. J.
NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT DABBEGHATTA
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADV.)
AND:
1. N. MAHANTHA REDDY
S/O. NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO. 93, 16TH CROSS
DODDANEKUNDI
CHINNAPPANAHALLI
MARATHAHALLI COLONY
BENGALURU-560 037.
2. THE MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX
HOSUR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 030.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED: 12.07.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION.173(1) OF MV
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DT.24.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1236/2017 ON THE
3
FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND
MEMBER,MACT, TUMAKURU, 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 dated 24.02.2020 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumakuru in
MVC No.1236/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 15.03.2017 at about 10.00
A.M., when the deceased-Honnegowda was
proceeding as a pillion rider on unregistered motorbike
along with his friend opposite BGS Engineering College
NH-75, Bengaluru Mangaluru highway, the rider the
said motorbike was taking U-turn at the said spot, the
driver of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-MY-
5868 came from opposite direction in a rash and
negligent manner and hit the motorbike. 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
Nos.1 and 2 have appeared through counsel and only
respondent No.2 has 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.
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.2 as PW-1
and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited
documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On behalf of
respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW-1
and RW-2 and got exhibited a document namely
Ex.R1. 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.5,45,200/- 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 58 years at the time of the accident
and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing
agriculture, cattle business and milk vending business.
But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly
income of the deceased as merely as Rs.6,000/-.
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, 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.15,000/- 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 Honnegowda 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.15,000/- 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 58 years,
the Tribunal has rightly considered 10% of the income
of the deceased towards future prospects. Hence, 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 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY
SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157],. Thus, the
monthly income comes to Rs.12,100/-. The Tribunal
has also rightly considered 1/3rd of the income of the
deceased towards personal expenses and therefore,
the monthly income comes to Rs.8,067/-. The
deceased was aged about 58 years at the time of the
accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is
'9'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation
of Rs.8,71,236/- (Rs.8,067*12*9) 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,
4, 5 and 6, 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 8,71,236
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of Parental 1,60,000
consortium
Total 11,01,236
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.11,01,236/- as against
Rs.5,45,200/- 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
HA/-
