Karnataka High Court
Santosh @ Dushyanthan vs Universal Sompo Gen Ins., Co.Ltd 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.7028 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SANTOSH @ DUSHYANTHAN
S/O. LATE SUBRAMANI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
2. GUNA @ GUNAMMA
D/O. LATE MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.7/489, MARYAMMAN KOVIL STREET,
C. PALLAVARAM, KANCHEEPURAM,
TAMILNADU-600 043.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V.SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GEN., INS., CO. LTD.,
NO.217/A, 3RD FLOOR, KVV SAMRAT,
3RD MAIN OUTER RING ROAD,
KASTURINAGAR,
BANGALORE-53.
2
2. CAPT. CHRITINA ELEAZAR,
C/O. M.SUBHAKAR
NO.374, ANCHOR HOME,
BEHIND GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL,
HEBBAL, BANGALORE-24.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, 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
21/06/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.5392/2016, ON THE
FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE &
XXXIV ACMM., COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER,
MACT-7, BENGALURU, 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 21.06.2018 passed
by the Court of the IX Addl. Small Causes and Addl.
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in
MVC.No.5392/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 03.07.2016, when the
deceased was standing on the extreme left side of
road near Malnad Hotel, Kammagondanahalli village,
at that time, a car bearing registration No. PB-08-CV-
3102, which was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed against 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 respondent
Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and
respondent No.1 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 Santhosh @
Dusyanthan as PW-1 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of respondents,
one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited
documents namely Ex.R1. 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.30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
and directed the Insurance Company to pay
compensation to the claimants 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.15,000/- per month by working as
Painter. The claimants are entirely depending upon
the income of the deceased. But the Tribunal has
failed to grant any compensation under the head of
'loss of dependency'.
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], claimant No.1 is entitled for compensation of
Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and
affection and consortium'. 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, claimant No.1 is the major son and
claimant No.2 is the married sister of the deceased
and they are not depending upon the income of the
deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not
granted any compensation under the head of 'loss of
dependency'.
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 deceased
Subramani 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.15,000/- 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, 10% 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.10,450/-. Since claimant Nos.1
and 2 are not depending upon the income of the
deceased, the compensation under the head of 'loss of
estate' has to be assessed in view of judgment of this
court in MFA.No.7318/2016 disposed of on
23.10.2020. Hence, it is appropriate to deduct 50%
of the income of the deceased and remaining amount
has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The
deceased was aged about 54 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.6,89,700/- (Rs.10,450/-*50%*12*11) on
account of 'loss of estate'.
In addition, the claimants are entitled to
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 No.1 of the deceased
is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the
head of 'loss of parental'.
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of estate 6,89,700
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of Parental 40,000
consortium
Total 7,44,700
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.7,44,700/- as against Rs.30,000/-
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
