Karnataka High Court

Mondem Venkatarathnamma vs Smt. C H Radha 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.4849 OF 2021(MV)

BETWEEN:

1.     MONDEM VENKATARATHNAMMA
       W/O LATE HARINATH,
       AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

2.     NANDINI @ MONDEM NANDINI PRIYA
       D/O LATE HARINATH,
       AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

3.     MONDEM LAYA
       D/O LATE HARINATH,
       AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,

4.     MONDEM MASTANAPPA
       S/O MONDEM BABAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,

       ALL ARE R/AT NO.1-1449,
       BETHAL CHURCH VEEDHI,
       GORANTLA, ANANTHAPUR,
       ANDHRA PRADESH-515 231.

                                        ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.K.V.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
                             2



AND:

1 . SMT. C.H.RADHA
    W/O RAMESH MAJOR,
    R/O FLAT NO.T-1,
    3RD FLOOR, D NO.54-20/10
    SUJANAKAKATIYA APARTMENTS,
    SRINAGAR COLONY,
    VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT,
    ANDHRA PRADESH-520 008.

2 . THE MANAGER
    NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
    REGIONAL OFFICE,
    NO.144, 2ND FLOOR,
    SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M G ROAD,
    BENGALURU-560 001.
                                  ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.B.C.SEETHARAM RAO, 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
01.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1919/2019 ON THE FILE
OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT,
C/C X ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT,
BENGALURU SCCH-16 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION     FOR       COMPENSATION      AND   SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.


       THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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 01.04.2021 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in

MVC No.1919/2019.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 13.02.2018 at about 08.30

A.M., the deceased purchased the vegetable at APMC

market, Bagepalli and in order to sell the same at

Gorentla, was proceeding along with his vegetables

bag in an Autorickshaw bearing Registration No.AP-

02-TJ-1576. The driver of the said Autorickshaw

driven the same on the extreme left side on NH-7

road slowly and cautiously, when they reached near

SRS Petrol Bunk, Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapura, at

that time, the driver of the Lorry bearing Registration

No.AP-04-X-2810 which was moving ahead of the

aforesaid Autorickshaw, applied sudden break in the

middle of the road without switching on the indicator.

As a result of the same, 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. It was pleaded that the petition

itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was

further pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the

Autorickshaw. The driver of the offending vehicle did

not holding valid driving licence at the time of the

accident. The liability is subject to terms and

conditions of the policy. 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.

The respondent No.1 did not appear before the

Tribunal inspite of service of notice and 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.P.1 to

Ex.P.18. On behalf of respondents, one witness was

examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. 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.16,45,000/- 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. Sri K. V. Naik, learned counsel for the

claimants has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased

was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident.

The deceased was working as a Vegetable Vendor and

was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. But the Tribunal

is not justified in taking the monthly income of the

deceased as merely as Rs.10,000/-.

Secondly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL

INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM reported in

2018 ACJ 2782, each of the claimants are entitled for

compensation under the head of 'loss of love and

affection and consortium'.

Lastly, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower

side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

7. Per contra, Sri B. C. Seetharam Rao,

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, 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, the Tribunal has awarded just and

reasonable compensation.

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 which is on

the higher side. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the

appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the judgment and award.

9. It is not in dispute that Harinath died in the

road traffic accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

Even though the claimants claim that the

deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, they

have not produced any document to establish the

same. Under thus circumstances, the notional income

has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the

accident has taken place in the year 2019, the

notional income has to be taken at Rs.14,000/- p.m.

To the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal has rightly

added 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

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI

AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157]. Thus, the

monthly income comes to Rs.17,500/-. Since there

are four dependents, the Tribunal has rightly deducted

1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal

expenses. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased

comes to Rs.13,125/-. The deceased was aged about

45 years at the time of the accident and multiplier

applicable to his age group is '14'. Thus, the claimants

are entitled to compensation of Rs.22,05,000/-

(Rs.13,125*14*12) on account of 'loss of

dependency'.

In addition, the claimants are entitled to

Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and

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, wife of the deceased is

entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the

head of 'loss of spousal consortium', 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 No.4, father

of the deceased is entitled for compensation of

Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of filial consortium' .

10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the

following compensation:

        Compensation under          Amount in
           different Heads            (Rs.)
       Loss of dependency            22,05,000
       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         40,000
                       Total         23,95,000

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.23,95,000/- as against

Rs.16,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of 'MS.JOYEETA BOSE' (supra), 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. (enhanced compensation shall carry interest at