Karnataka High Court
Lakkamma vs The Manager 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.7052 OF 2021 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. LAKKAMMA
W/O. LATE MAHESH R.G.,
NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
2. EMPANA
D/O. LATE MAHESH R.G.,
NOW AGED ABOUT 07 YEARS.
3. TEERTHARAMU
S/O. LATE MAHESH R.G.,
NOW AGED ABOUT 05 YEARS.
4. GANGAMMA
W/O. GOPALAIAH
NOW AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
5. GOPALAYYA
S/O.EERAYYA
NOW AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
6. VISHNU
S/O.GOPALAYYA
NOW AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
2
APPELLANT NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS
REP. BY THEIR N/G AND MOTHER
APPELLANT NO.1
ALL ARE R/AT RAMAPPANAHATTI,
SADARAHALLI (POST), KANDIKERE HOBLI
C.N. HALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DIST.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAGHU.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KASTURI MANSION, M.G.ROAD,
ABOVE CORPORATION BANK,
BEHIND KRISHNA TALKIES,
TUMKUR-572 101.
2. RAMESH.C
S/O.CHANDRAIAH,
NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT.RAMAPPANAHATTI,
SADARAHALLI (POST), KANDIKERE HOBLI,
C.N. HALLI TALUK,
TUMKUR DIST-572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADV FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
09.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 505/2020 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AND
3
XIX MACT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, 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 09.09.2021 passed
by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC XIX, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chikkanayakanahalli in MVC
No.505/2020.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 06.02.2020, when the
deceased Mahesh was proceeding on a bike bearing
registration No. KA.44.S.1831 with respondent No.2
as a pillion rider, near Kariyamma Temple of
Gowrasagara gate, at that time, the driver of said bike
drove in a rash and negligent manner and hit to the
road side guard stone and caused the accident. 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.1 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 Smt.
Lakkamma as PW-1 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P23. On behalf of respondents,
one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited
documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. 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.29,98,100/- along with interest at the rate of
6% p.a. and directed Insurance Company to pay
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 30 years at the time of the accident
and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by
working as agent of SLR Bus Transport. But the
Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income
of the deceased as merely as Rs.13,250/-.
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'. 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.20,000/- 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, he contends that in view of judgment
of a Division Bench in the case of JOYEETA BOSE -
V- UNITED INSURANCE CO., interest awarded by
the tribunal at 9% is on higher side. Hence, he
sought for allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance
company.
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. 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 deceased Mahesh
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.20,000/- per month. But they have not produced
any documents to prove the income of the deceased.
As per the notification issued on 03.01.2020 under
Section 4(1)(b) of the Employees Compensation Act,
Rs.15,000/- has been fixed. Therefore, the notional
income of the deceased has to be taken at
Rs.15,000/- p.m.
To the aforesaid income, the tribunal has rightly
considered 40% of the income of the deceased on
account of future prospects and rightly deducted 1/4th
of the income of the deceased for personal expenses.
The deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of
the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group
is '17'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.32,13,000/- (Rs.21,000
*12*3/4*17) 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 Nos.2 and 3, children
of the deceased are entitled for compensation of
Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'loss of parental
consortium' and claimant Nos.4 and 5, 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 32,13,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of Parental 80,000
consortium
Loss of Filial consortium 80,000
Total 34,43,000
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.34,43,000/- as against
Rs.29,98,100/- 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
JY
