Karnataka High Court

Ranganathappa vs Sarojamma 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.5399 OF 2019(MV)

BETWEEN:

1 . RANGANATHAPPA
    S/O LATE DODDAKAMANNA
    AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

2 . NINGAMMA
    W/O RANGANATHAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

   BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
   KARAJAVANAHALI
   BHOOPASANDRA POST
   KALLAMBELLA HOBLI
   SIRA TALUK-572137.

3 . PREMA
    W/O LINGESH,
    AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
    R/AT BETTANAHALLI
    KALLMBELLA HOBLI
    SIRA TALUK-572137.

4 . MANGALAMMA
    W/O SADANANDA
    AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
                           2



     R/AT GULIGENAHALLI
     SIRA TALUK-572137.

5 . KAMALA
    W/O CHIDANANDA
    R/AT AMALAGONDI VILALGE
    KALLAMBELLA HOBLI
    SIRA TALUK-572137.
                                 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K., ADV.)

AND:

1.   SAROJAMMA
     W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
     R/AT SIDDALINGANARAGARA
     MAGADI ROAD
     BENGALURU NORTH 560023.

2.   NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
     BY ITS MANAGER
     ABOVE CORPORATION BANK
     BEHIND KRISHNA TALKIES
     M.G.ROAD
     TUMAKURU-572101.
                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV. FOR R2:
   NOTICE TO R1 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
DATED:18.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.198/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC AND
ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
                                 3



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 18.08.2017 passed

by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira in

MVC No.198/2016.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 14.01.2016 at about 02.30

p.m., when one Hanumantharayappa along with

deceased-Maradi Ranganatha were waiting for the Bus

on Tumkur-Sira NH-4 service road, near

Bramhasandra Gate, Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk and

at that time, the driver of Maruthi Omni Car bearing

Registration No.KA-02-MJ-5797 from Tumkur towards

Sira on the said NH-4 road drove the same in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased

and others. 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 appeared through counsel and only

respondent No.2 has 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 another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. 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

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.8,70,000/- 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. The learned counsel for the claimants has

raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased

was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident

and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing

agricultural work, milk vending and flower business.

But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly

income of the deceased as merely as Rs.7,500/-.

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 may be

considered.

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, 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, even though the claimants claim that the

deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- 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.

Lastly, in view of judgment of the 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 claimants are entitled for 6% interest

but the Tribunal has granted 9% interest is on the

higher side. 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 Maradi Ranganath

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.10,000/- 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 2016, the notional

income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.9,500/-

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 'PRANAY SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income

comes to Rs.13,300/-. Since the deceased was a

bachelor, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the

income of the deceased towards personal expenses

and therefore, the monthly income comes to

Rs.6,650/-. The deceased was aged about 22 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.14,36,400/- (Rs.6,650*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' .

10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the

following compensation:

          Compensation under               Amount in
             different Heads                  (Rs.)
         Loss of dependency                  14,36,400
         Funeral expenses                       15,000
         Loss of estate                         15,000
         Loss of Filial consortium              80,000
                         Total              15,46,400

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.15,46,400/- as against

Rs.8,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of 'MS.JOYEETA BOSE', the

enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per

annum.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest at 9%

p.a. (the enhanced compensation shall carry interest