Karnataka High Court
Smt Usha G vs Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins. Co.Ltd on 16 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.4786 OF 2020(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT USHA G
W/O LATE MAHESH B N
AGED 40 YEARS.
2. SRI RAVI B M
S/O LATE MAHESH B N
AGED 20 YERAS
3. KUSHAL B M
S/O LATE MAHESH B N
AGED 10 YERAS
4. NANDISHA B M
S/O LATE MAHESH B N
AGED 3 YERAS
(APPELLANT Nos. 3 & 4 ARE MINORS
REP BY THEIR MOTHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST APPELLANT)
5. SRI NAGARAJU B S
S/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA
AGED 66 YEARS
2
6. SMT MANJULA
W/O NAGARAJU B S
AGED 60 YERAS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.208
4TH MODEL HOUSE STREET
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE-560 024.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. NITHYA V., ADV. FOR
SRI.PRAKASH M H., ADV.)
AND
1 . BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN.INS. CO.LTD.
GOLDEN HEIGHTS
4TH FLOOR, NO.1/2
59TH C CROSS, 4TH M BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010
REP BY ITS MANAGER.
2 . SRI ANJANA MURTHY
S/O POOJANJANAPPA
MAJOR
R/AT NO.177, 5TH CROSS
GIRINAGAR, 2ND STAGE
KASTURIBA COLONY
BENGALURU-560 085.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV. FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
3
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED: 03.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.2945/2019
ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU SCCH-18, 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 3.3.2020 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC
2945/2019.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 14.4.2019 when the
deceased Mahesh was riding motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-05-JR-7952 on Bengaluru-
Kanakaura Road, in front of Edify school, NH-209,
Uttarahalli road, at that time, another motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-41-H-2582 which was
being ridden in a rash and negligent manner, dashed
against the vehicle of 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 their respective counsel and filed
written statements 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 as PW-1
and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited
documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of
respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and
got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R6. The
Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia,
held that the accident took place on account of rash
and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its
rider, 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.20,65,500/- along with interest at
the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance
Company to deposit the compensation amount along
with interest with liberty to recover the same from the
owner of the offending vehicle. Being aggrieved, this
appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimants has
contended that the claimants claim that the deceased
was aged about 39 years at the time of the accident
and he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by running
the sugarcane juice centre. But the Tribunal is not
justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased
as merely as Rs.9,500/-. Considering the age and
avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation
awarded by the Tribunal 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.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 and considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable.
Fourthly, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at
8% p.a. on the compensation amount 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 of the Tribunal.
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.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
added 40% 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.19,600/-.
Considering the number of dependents, the Tribunal
has rightly deducted 1/4th of the income of the
deceased towards personal expenses and has applied
correct multiplier of '15'. Thus, the claimants are
entitled to compensation of Rs.26,46,000/-
(Rs.19,600*12*15*3/4) on account of 'loss of
dependency'.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under other heads are just and reasonable.
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 consortium 2,40,000
Total 29,16,000
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.29,16,000/- as against
Rs.20,65,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 8%
p.a. (enhanced amount shall carry 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.
The Insurance Company is at liberty to recover
the compensation amount from the owner of the
offending vehicle.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
