Karnataka High Court
Smt Savithramma vs Sri A M Sharanappa 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.6112 OF 2021 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
W/O. LATE. RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
2. MALASHREE
D/O.RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.
3. DEEPIKA
S/O LATE. RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT
BANDENAHALLI VILLAGE
I.D.HALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
NOW RESIDING AT:
AREKERE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BYRAREDDY G.S., ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. SRI. A.M. SHARANAPPA
S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O. HANUMANTHAPURA,
KORATAGERE TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 101.
(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
MARUTHI KRUPA BUS BEARING NO KA-64-0099)
2. THE MANAGER
THE ORIENTEAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, TGMA BUIDLING,
J.C. ROAD,
TUMAKURU CITY -572 101.
(POLICY NO.423201/31/2019/8907
VALID FROM 19-01-2019 UP TO 18-01-2020)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADV FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
18.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 773/2019 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT XI, TUMAKURU, 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:
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 dated 18.03.2021 passed
by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal XI, Tumakuru in MVC No.773/2019.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 31.03.2019, at about 11.45
a.m. when the deceased Rajanna was proceeding on
TVS XL Moped bearing registration No. KA-64-L-4067,
at that time, a passenger bus by name Maruthi Krupa
bearing registration No.KA-64-0099 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 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
Savithramma as PW-1 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. 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.14,70,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally
liable 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 40 years at the time of the accident
and he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by
working as coolie and doing milk vending etc., But the
Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income
of the deceased as merely as Rs.10,000/- per month,
which is on lower side.
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.25,000/- 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 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 Rajanna
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.25,000/- 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, the tribunal has rightly
considered addition of 25% of 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 the case of NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND
OTHERS. Thus, the monthly income comes to
Rs.17,500/-. The tribunal has rightly 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 tribunal has rightly
assessed the multiplier as '14'. Thus, the claimants
are entitled to compensation of Rs.19,60,000/-
(Rs.17,500*12*2/3*14) 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'.
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 19,60,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of Parental 80,000
consortium
Total 21,10,000
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.21,10,000/- as against
Rs.14,70,000/- 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
