Karnataka High Court
Sri Gopal M vs Mujahid M on 18 July, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.1745 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI GOPAL M
W/O MUTHU CHETTI
AGED ABIYT 59 YEARS.
2 . SMT SUJATHA G
W/O GOPAL M
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
3 . UPENDRA G
S/O MUTHU CHETTI
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.4/17A, MEKALAGOUNDANUR
ARASAKUPPAM POST
KRISHNAGIRI , DENKANIKOTTAI
TAMIL NADU-635107.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADV.)
AND
1. MUJAHID M
S/O MEHABOOB JAN N K
MAJOR IN AGE
RESIDING AT NO.33
2
MOSQUE ROAD
BISMILLAH NAGAR
BANGALORE-560029
ALSO AT NO.44
NALLURU VILLAGE & POST
NEAT RATION SHOP, HOSUR TALUK
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT
TAMIL NADU.
2. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
NO.69, 3RD FLOOR
J P & DEVI JAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE
MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE-560052
REP BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED: 10.07.2021)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:28.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.3553/2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
AND MACT, BENGALURU(SCCH-11), 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 28.06.2018 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in
MVC No.3553/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 04.05.2017 at about 07.15
p.m., the deceased Ambuja Gopal was proceeding in a
motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-51-EH-8695 as
a pillion rider and the same was ridden by its rider-
cum-RC owner by name Mujahid from silk board
towards electronic city on NH-7 (BETL) elevated
flyover in a rash and negligent manner endangering to
human life, without observing any of the traffic rules
and regulations, while so proceeding reached near
electronic city phase-2 turning / curse (BMTC Depot)
due to his negligent riding lost control and dashed
against the flyover bridge. 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 filed
written statement in which the averments made in the
petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition
itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. 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.1 as PW-1
and other two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3 and got
exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P47. 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 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.14,05,800/- 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 24 years at the time of the accident,
she has completed her MBA with Distinction and she
was earning Rs.13,500/- per month by working as
Recruiter HR at Stress Consulting. She left the said
job and has applied for a new job in Aaclat Company.
She has also attended the interview. As per the offer
letter which is marked at Ex.P17 dated 02.05.2017,
her monthly salary has been fixed as Rs.16,000/-.
But before she accepting the appointment letter, she
died on 04.05.2017 in the accident. The claimants
have also examined the Vice President of Aaclat
Company as PW-3 and he has also admitted that
monthly salary has been fixed as Rs.16,000/- as per
Ex.P17. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the
monthly income of the deceased as merely as
Rs.9,000/-.
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, immediately after the accident, the
deceased-Ambuja Gopal has been shifted to Sparsh
Hospital, Bengaluru. On the same day, she died due
to the accidental injuries. The claimants claim that
they have spent Rs.69,498/- for medical expenses. To
that effect, they have produced Ex.P44-Medical Bills.
The Tribunal has failed to consider the same.
Lastly, 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, as per the evidence of PW-1, the
deceased was working as a Recruiter HR at Stress
Consulting and earning Rs.13,500/- per month.
Thereafter, she left the said job and as on the date of
the accident, she was not working in any company.
As per the evidence of PW-3, Vice President of the
Aaclat Company, the offer letter has not accepted by
the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
Secondly, 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 Ambuja Gopal 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 aged
about 24 years and has completed her MBA Course
with Distinction and she was earning Rs.13,500/- per
month by working as Recruiter HR at Stress
Consulting. She has left the said job and she has
received an offer letter from Aaclat Company as per
Ex.P17. Before she accepting the appointment letter,
she died in the accident occurred on 04.05.2017. Even
the claimant has examined one Rajeev as PW-3, who
is the Vice President of Aaclat Company, has not
dispute the appointment letter dated 02.05.2017 as
per Ex.P17.
It is also not in dispute that the deceased has
completed her MBA Course as per Ex.P28. The
Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.3469/2019
disposed of on 29.08.2019 has considered in case
of Engineering Graduates or in case of MBA graduates,
the monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. In view of the
same, I am of the opinion that the monthly income of
the deceased can be assessed safely at Rs.15,000/-.
The Tribunal has rightly added 40% of the
income towards future prospects. Hence, 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. -v- PRANAY SETHI
AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157]. Thus, the monthly
income comes to Rs.21,000/-. Since the deceased was
a spinster as on the date of the accident, it is
appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the
deceased towards personal expenses and therefore,
the monthly income comes to Rs.10,500/-. The
deceased was aged about 24 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.22,68,000/- (Rs.10,500*12*18) 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 Nos.1 and 2, parents of the
deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-
each under the head of 'loss of filial consortium' .
In respect of medical expenses is concerned, the
deceased-Ambuja Gopal has suffered grievous injuries
in the road traffic accident. Immediately after the
accident, she has been shifted to Sparsh Hospital,
Benagalulru and she succumbed to the injuries on the
same day. The claimants have produced the medical
bills as per Ex.P44 for a sum of Rs.69,497/-.
Considering the evidence of the claimants and
considering the medical bills, I am of the opinion that
the claimants are entitled for Rs.69,498/- towards
medical expenses.
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 22,68,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of Filial consortium 80,000
Medical Expenses 69,498
Total 24,47,498
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.24,47,498/- as against
Rs.14,05,800/- 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.
In view of the order dated 01.03.2021 passed by
this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest
for the delayed period of 141 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA/-
