Karnataka High Court

Smt. Renukamma vs Theertha Prasad on 21 July, 2022

Bench: H T Prasad

                        1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2022

                     BEFORE

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

          MFA No.2693 OF 2021(MV)

BETWEEN:

1.    SMT. RENUKAMMA
      W/O. MANJUNATH
      AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

2.    CHAITHRA
      D/O. LATE MANJUNATH
      AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

      BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
      TYAGATURU VILLAGE
      NITTUR HOBLI
      GUBBI TALUK
      TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 223.

                                    ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.K.N.SUNIL, ADV. FOR
SRI.RAMESH K R., ADV.)

AND

1.    THEERTHA PRASAD
      S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA
      AGED MAJOR
                           2




     R/O. NO. 432, 2ND CROSS
     PIPE LINE
     MALLESWARAM
     BENGALURU-560 003.

2.   THE MANAGER
     ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE
     414, VEER SAVARKAR MARG
     NEAR SIDDIVINAYAK TEMPLE
     PRABHUDEVI
     MUMBAI-400 025.

                                     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADV. FOR
SRI. H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 21.07.2022)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
12.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1077/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC,   GUBBI,   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

12.6.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Gubbi in MVC 1077/2017.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 4.2.2017 when the deceased

Manjunatha was proceeding on motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-53-EB-3334 from K.G.Temple

towards Kadaba, at that time, a motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-06-X-5059 which was being ridden

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 respondents

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 another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. 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.773,600/- 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. The learned counsel for the claimants has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased

was aged about 55 years at the time of the accident

and he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by

working as agriculturist and working in a private

factory. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the

monthly income of the deceased as merely as

Rs.7,000/-.

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

10% of the established income towards 'future

prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased

was between the age of 50-60 years. The same has

been rightly considered by the Tribunal.

Thirdly, 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'.

Fourthly, 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.12,000/- 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

Manjunatha 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.12,000/- 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

10% 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.12,100/-.

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 55 years at the time of the

accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is

'11'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation

of Rs.10,64,800/- (Rs.12,100*12*11*2/3) 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'. Claimant No.1, wife of the

deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-

under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme

Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL

INSURANCE' (supra), claimant No.2, daughter of the

deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-

under the head of 'loss of parental consortium'.

The compensation of Rs.6,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal under 'medical expenses' is as per medical

bills produced by the claimant and the same is is just

and reasonable.

10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the

following compensation:

        Compensation under          Amount in
           different Heads            (Rs.)
       Loss of dependency            10,64,800
       Funeral expenses                 15,000
       Loss of estate                   15,000
       Loss of spousal                  40,000
       consortium
       Loss of Parental                    40,000
       consortium
       Medical expenses                     6,000
                       Total         11,80,800

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.11,80,800/- as against

Rs.773,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.

The Insurance Company 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.

In view of the order dated 21.7.2022 passed by