Karnataka High Court
Smt Jayamma vs Mr Rama Murthy on 1 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.3860 OF 2021(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt.Jayamma,
W/o Thippe Narasappa,
Aged about 50 years,
2. Thippe Narasappa,
S/o Chikkanna,
Aged about 55 years,
3. Janardhan,
S/o Thippe Narasappa,
Aged about 30 years,
All are residing at
Tavakadahalli Village,
Bijavara Post, Kasaba Hobli,
Madhugiri Taluk,
Tumakuru District - 572 132.
... Appellants
(By Sri.K.V.Naik., Advocate)
AND:
1. Mr.Rama Murthy,
S/o Late Narayanappa,
No.178, Doddajala Post,
Near Society Rajanna's Hopuse,
2
Bengaluru - 562 157.
(R.C.Owner of Lorry Bearing
Registration No.KA-50-A-0518)
2. The Manager,
Royal Sundaram General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Regional office, No.30, 3rd floor,
JNR city centre,
Rajaram Mohanroy Road,
Sampangirama Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
... Respondents
(By Sri.Ravi.S.Samprathi, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 is dispensed with)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated 01.03.2021 passed
in MVC No.5153/2019 on the file of the IX Additional
Small Causes Judge & ACMM Member-MACT, Bengaluru,
(SCCH-7) Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA, coming on for Orders, this day, this 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 01.03.2021 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in
MVC No.5153/2019.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 02.08.2019 at about 8.30
p.m., the deceased Umesh was proceeding in a lorry
bearing registration No.KA-50/A-0518 which was
loaded with granite stones. The said lorry was
proceeding from Andhrapradesh to Devenahalli on
Bangalore - Kadapa road, at that time, the driver of
the said lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the electric pole, further
moved and fell into ditch. 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
No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written
statement in which the averments made in the
petition were denied. The age, occupation and income
of the deceased are denied. It was pleaded that the
petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law.
It was further pleaded that the claimant was an
unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle. It was
further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle
did not possess valid driving licence as on the date of
the accident. It was further pleaded that the liability is
subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was
further pleaded that the quantum of compensation
claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he
sought for dismissal of the petition.
The respondent No.1 did not appear before the
Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was
placed ex-parte.
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.P13.
On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was
examined nor got exhibited documents. 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.15,88,400/- 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 earning Rs.40,000/- per month by working as a
supervisor. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking
the monthly income of the deceased as only
Rs.11,000/-.
Secondly, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower
side. Hence, he prays for enhancement of
compensation.
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.40,000/- 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, 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 sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that deceased Umesh
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.40,000/- 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. 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.19,600/-. Since the
deceased was a bachelour, 50% of the income of the
deceased has to be deducted towards personal
expenses and remaining amount, i.e, Rs.9,800/- has
to be taken as his contribution to the family. The
deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of the
accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is
'16'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation
of Rs.18,81,600/- (Rs.9,800*12*16*) 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 18,81,600
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of Filial consortium 80,000
Total 19,91,600
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.19,91,600/- as against
Rs.15,88,400/- 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
Cm/-
