Karnataka High Court
Smt Shanthi Kumari vs Smt Rashmi P N 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.3585 OF 2021(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Shanthi Kumari,
W/o Late. Shivananjaiah,
Aged about 51 years.
2. Smt. Nandini.S.,
D/o Late. Shivananjaiah,
Aged about 30 years.
3. Smt. Roopa S.,
D/o Late. Shivananjaiah,
Aged about 37 years.
All are residing at:
No.249/A ward No.2,
Vinayaka Nagara,
B.M.Road, Beside Silk factory,
Ramanagara District-562 159. ... Appellants
(By Sri. Tejas N., Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt. Rashmi P.N.,
W/o Sunil Kumar S.,
Age Major,
R/at No.11,
Sugganahalli Village & Post,
Kasaba Hobli,
2
Ramanagara Taluk
And District-562159.
2. The Manager,
IFFCO TOKIO General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
KSCMF Building, III Floor,
Cunningham Road,
Bangalore-560 052. ... Respondents
(By Sri.E.I.Sanmathi., Advocate for R2:
Notice to R1 is D/W v/o dated: 23.11.2021)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated: 25.02.2021
passed in MVC No.5569/2018 on the file of the VIII
Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal(SCCH-5), at Bangalore partly allowing the
claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement
of compensation.
This MFA, coming on for admission, this day, this
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 25.02.2021 passed
by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-5) at Bengaluru
in MVC No.5569/2018.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 12.09.2018 at about 8.30
p.m., the deceased Anil Kumar was proceeding on
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42/R-9017.
When he reached near Vaderahalli Gate, B.M.road, at
that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-42/M-9553
which was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed against the vehicle of the deceased.
As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the
injuries on 20.09.2018.
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 pleaded that the
petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law.
It was further pleaded that the accident was due to
the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the
deceased himself. It was further pleaded that the
driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid
driving licence as on the date of the accident. It was
further pleaded that the liability is subject to terms
and conditions of the policy. 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 Dr.Mohan Kumar K.R. as PW-2 and got exhibited
documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On behalf of
respondents, neither any witness was examined nor
got exhibited documents. 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.13,60,000/- 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. Sri Tejas, the learned counsel for the
claimants has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, at the time of the accident deceased was
aged about 33 years, he was working in Britannia
Company and earning Rs.17,000/- per month. But
the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly
income of the deceased as only Rs.9,000/-.
Secondly, due to the accident the deceased has
suffered grievous injuries, he has been admitted to
Government Hospital, Ramanagara and later shifted to
Bengaluru. On 20.09.2019, he succumbed to the
injuries. The claimants have filed an application for
grant of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses.
They have produced medical bills to the tune of
Rs.1,21,273/- as per Ex.P15. But the Tribunal has not
granted any compensation under the said head.
Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation.
7. On the other hand, Sri E.I.Sanmathi, 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.17,000/- 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, even though the claimants have
produced medical bill as per Ex.P15, they have not
examined any witness from the hospital to prove the
said documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly
not awarded any compensation under the said head.
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, in view of the law laid down by a
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS vs.
VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018
and connected matters disposed of on
24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the
Tribunal at 9% p.a. is on the higher side. Hence, he
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment and award.
9. It is not in dispute that Anil Kumar 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.17,000/- per month by working in Britannia
Company. 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. To the aforesaid income, 40% 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.
vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR
2017 SC 5157. Thus, the monthly income comes to
Rs.17,500/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, it is
appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the
deceased towards personal expenses and remaining
amount, i.e., Rs.8,750/- has to be taken as his
contribution to the family. The deceased was aged
about 33 years at the time of the accident and
multiplier applicable to his age group is '16'. Thus,
the claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.16,80,000/- (Rs.8,750*12*16) on account of 'loss
of dependency'.
The deceased Anil Kumar met with an accident
on 12.08.2018, he has suffered grievous injuries.
Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital,
Ramanagaram, thereafter he has been shifted to
KIMS, Bengaluru. He was treated as inpatient till
20.09.2018 and on that day, he succumbed to the
injuries. The claimants have spent more than
Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. The
claimants have produced 39 medical bills as per
Ex.P15 to the tune of Rs.1,21,273/-. Even PW-1 in
her evidence has categorically stated that they have
spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- for medical expenses.
Even the respondent made a suggestion that they
have not spent that amount, and the same has been
denied by PW-1.
The learned counsel for the appellant has placed
before this Court certified copies of the medical bills
produced before the Tribunal. All bills are related to
the deceased when he was treated as inpatient in the
hospital. Considering the medical bills produced by
the claimants and considering the evidence of PW-1, I
am of the opinion that Rs.1,00,000/- can be awarded
under the head of 'medical expenses'.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under other heads is just and reasonable.
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 16,80,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of consortium 1,20,000
Medical expenses 1,00,000
Total 19,30,000
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.19,30,000/- as against
Rs.13,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench
of this Court in JOYEETA BOSE (supra) the
enhanced compensation carries interest @ 6% p.a.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest @ 9%
p.a. (interest @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced
compensation) 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
Cm/-
