Karnataka High Court
Sujatha vs Yogananda K S on 10 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.1 OF 2022 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SUJATHA
W/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH,
NOW AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
2. ARYAN R. S.
S/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH
NOW AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
3. HITNESH R. S.
D/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH
NOW AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
APPELLANT NOS.2 &3 ARE
MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR
N/G & MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1.
APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT NO.20, BYADRAHALLI,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BANGALORE-560 091.
2
4. NANJAMMA
W/O LATE BYRAPPA
NOW AGED 67 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT
JUNJAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE,
HEBBURU HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. YOGANANDA K. S.
S/O SHIVALINGE GOWDA,
R/AT NO.15, 6TH MAIN,
AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI,
MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 079.
2. THE MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GEN INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX,
89 HOSUR ROAD, MADIWALA,
1ST STAGE, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560 068.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
05.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 5724/2019 ON THE
FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), PARTLY
3
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 05.03.2021 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in
MVC No.5724/2019.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 11.05.2019, at around 1.00
p.m., when the deceased was proceeding on motor
cycle bearing registration No.KA-25-Q-9408, from
Tumkur side towards Kunigal side, at that time, a car
bearing registration No.KA-03-MU-1984, which was
being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed
against the deceased vehicle. 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 Smt.
Sujatha as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely
Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On behalf of respondents, neither
any witnesses were examined nor any documents
were 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.19,60,000/- 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. The learned counsel for the claimants has
raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased
was aged about 38 years at the time of the accident
and he was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from
agriculture work and Rs.15,000/- per month by
working as a Electrician. 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 [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'.
Thirdly, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower
side. 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, even though the claimants claim that the
deceased was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from
agriculture work and Rs.15,000/- per month by
working as a Electrician, 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.
Lastly, he contended that the interest awarded
by the tribunal at 9% is on higher side, contrary to
the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of JOYEETA BOSE -V- UNITED INSURANCE
CO. 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
Shivalingaiah 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.1,00,000/- per annum from agriculture work and
Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a Electrician.
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.
The tribunal has rightly awarded 40% of the
income of the deceased on account of future prospects
in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS. Thus, the
monthly income comes to Rs.19,600/-. The Tribunal
has rightly deducted 1/4th of the income of the
deceased towards personal expenses and remaining
amount has to be taken as his contribution to the
family. The deceased was aged about 38 years at the
time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his
age group is '15'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.26,46,000/-
(Rs.19,600*12*3/4*15) 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 No.4, mother of the
deceased is 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 26,46,000
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 28,36,000
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.28,36,000/- as against
Rs.19,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench
of this Court in JOYEETA BOSE (supra), enhanced
compensation carries interest at 6% p.a.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 9%
p.a. (enhanced compensation shall carry interest at
6% per annum) 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
