Karnataka High Court
Smt Mahadevamma vs The Managing Director on 15 July, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
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.4777 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT MAHADEVAMMA
W/O LATE THAMMAIAH
@ THAMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
2. KUM. H.T.SUCHITHRA
D/O LATE THAMMAIAH
@ THAMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS
MINOR REPT. BY HER MOTHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
MAHADEVAMMA.
BOTH ARE R/AT HULKERE VILLAGE
K.BETTAHALLI POST
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571435.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MAHADEVA SWAMY P., ADV.)
2
AND
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC DEPOT
K.H.ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560027.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.GOWTHAMDEV C ULLAL., ADV. )
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO. 462/18 ON THE FILE
OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SCJ & XXXIII ACMM,
MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU [SCCH-5], 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
25.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC 462/2018.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 30.11.2017, when the
deceased Thammaiah @ Thammegowda was riding
the TVS moped bearing registration No.KA-54-J-7796
on the left side of the road on Mysore-K.R.Pete Main
Road, near Hulkere Gate, Pandavapura Taluk, at that
time, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-11-F-
0439 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.
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
appeared through counsel and filed written statement
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 got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P11.
On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined
as RW-1 and no 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.14,54,000/- along with interest at the rate of
9% p.a. and directed the KSRTC 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 39 years at the time of the accident
and he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by
working as Mason. But the Tribunal is not justified in
taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely
as Rs.8,000/-.
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 KSRTC has raised the following counter-
contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the
deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- 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.
Fourthly, in view of the Division Bench decision
of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and
others -v- Venkateshan.V and others (MFA
5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of
on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest granted 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 judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that deceased
Thammaiah 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.25,000/- 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.
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.15,400/-.
Considering the number of dependents, the Tribunal
has deducted 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 about 39 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.18,48,000/- (Rs.15,400*12*15*2/3) on account
of 'loss of dependency'.
In addition, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable.
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 18,48,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal consortium 40,000
Loss of Parental 40,000
consortium
Total 19,58,000
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.19,58,000/- as against
Rs.14,54,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The KSRTC 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
