Smt.Poornima vs United India Ins Co Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 10844 Kant

                        1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                    BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

         MFA No.3674 OF 2021(MV)


BETWEEN:

1 . SMT.POORNIMA
    W/O CHELLAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

2 . SRI CHELLAIAH
    S/O CHIKKAMADAIAH
    AGED 44 YEARS.

3 . SRI MAHESH KUMAR
    @ SUDEEP
    S/O CHELLAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

   ALL ARE R/AT ARALALU VILAWLGE
   KASABA HOBLI
   KANAKAPURA TALUK
   RAMANAGARA DIST 562117.
                                   ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.NITHYA V., ADV. FOR
SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADV.)
                        2




AND

1 . UNITED INDIA INS CO LTD
    OFFICE AT 5TH & 6TH FLOORS
    KRUSHIBHAVAN
    HUDSON CIRCLE
    BANGALORE 560 001
    REP BY ITS MANAGER.

2 . SRI NAVEEN K P
    S/O PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
    AGE MAJOR
    R/AT NO. 63
    HONNIGANAHALLY VILLAGE
    NARAYANAPURA POST
    KASABA HOBLI
    KANAKAPURA TALUK
    RAMANAGARA DIST 562117.

                                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.JWALA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 15.07.2022)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION.173(1) OF
MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DT.25.06.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.2708/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM,
MEMBER, MACT-3 BENGALURU, 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:
                                  3




                          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

25.6.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC 2708/2019.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 6.4.2019, when the

deceased Shivaswamy @ Puneeth was proceeding on

motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42-R-4659

along with pillion rider, Prajwal, from Aralalu Village

towards Kanakapura side and when they were on

Sangama-Kanakapura Road, at that time, another

motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-42-R-2458

which was being ridden 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 respondents

appeared through their 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 as PW-1

and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On behalf of

respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and

no documents were produced. The Claims Tribunal, by

the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the

accident took place on account of rash and negligent

riding of the offending vehicle by its rider, 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.16,22,000/- 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 19 years at the time of the accident

and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by

working at Pendal Shop. But the Tribunal is not

justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased

as merely as Rs.10,000/-.

Secondly, as per the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL

INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND

OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in case the deceased

was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of

40% of the established income towards 'future

prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased

was below the age of 40 years. The same has been

rightly considered by the Tribunal.

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.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 judgment and award of the Tribunal.

9. It is not in dispute that deceased

Shivaswamy died in the road traffic accident occurred

due to rash and negligent riding of the offending

vehicle by its rider.

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 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/-. Since the

deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal has rightly

deducted 50% 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 19 years at the time of the accident

and multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'.

Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of

Rs.21,16,800/- (Rs.19,600*12*18*50%) on account

of 'loss of dependency'.

Further, the compensation awarded has awarded

just and reasonable under other heads.

10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the

following compensation:

        Compensation under         Amount in
           different Heads            (Rs.)
       Loss of dependency            21,16,800
       Funeral expenses                 15,000
       Loss of estate                   15,000
       Loss of Filial consortium        80,000
                       Total        22,26,800

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.22,26,800/- as against

Rs.16,22,000/- 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