Karnataka High Court
Bhagyamma vs A. S. Srinath on 22 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.3464 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:
1 . BHAGYAMMA
W/O B V NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
2 . B V NAGARAJ
S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
3 . KUM ARUNA
D/O B V NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/O C/O
C K CHANDRASHEKHAR
CHILUPANAHALLI
NAYAKARAHALLI POST
KOLAR TALUK-563101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.K. VISHWANATH, ADV.)
2
AND
1. A. S. SRINATH
S/O SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/O AJJAPANAHALLI VILLAGE
KEMBODI POST
KOLAR TALUK-563101.
2. M/S RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD
BRANCH OFFICE
RGIC.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR
CENTENARY BUILDING
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADV. 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:31.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.94/2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE MACT AND III ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR, 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 and award dated
31.1.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Kolar in MVC 94/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 15.5.2017, when the
deceased Akshatha was proceeding on motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-07-V-2521 as a pillion rider
to attend to project work to Scania Company, in front
of Alpyn Alloys Factory, Bengaluru-Kolar Byepass
road, at that time, Eicher canter bearing registration
No.KA-07-4926 which was being driven 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 respondent
No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written
statement in which the averments made in the
petition were denied.
The respondent No.1 did not appear before the
Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence 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.P1 to Ex.P25.
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.688,000/- along with interest at
the rate of 6% 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 24 years at the time of the accident
and she was a MBA student. She was a brilliant
student and very good at her academics. But the
Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income
of the deceased as merely as Rs.6,000/-.
Secondly, as per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND
OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], in case the deceased
was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of
40% of the established income towards 'future
prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased
was below the age of 40 years. The same may be
considered.
Thirdly, 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'.
Fourthly, 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, the deceased was a student and non-
earning member. 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. 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 Akshatha
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 a MBA
student, she was a brilliant student and had a bright
future and in support of their claim they have
produced SSLC marks card of the deceased at Ex.P-8
and 9 and also produced BBM and MBA marks card at
Ex.P-10 to 20. The Division Bench of this Court in MFA
3469/2019 disposed of on 29.8.2019, has taken the
notional income of the deceased, who was an
engineering student at Rs.15,000/- p.m. while
calculating the 'loss of dependency'. Therefore,
considering the age of the deceased and considering
that she was a MBA student and had a bright future
and considering her academics and co-curriculum
achievements, I am of the opinion that the notional
income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.14,000/-
p.m.
To the aforesaid income, 40% 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.19,600/-. Since the deceased
was a spinster, it is appropriate to deduct 50% 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 24 years at the time of the accident and
multiplier applicable to her age group is '18'. Thus,
the claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.21,16,800/- (Rs.19,600*12*18*50%) 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'.
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE' (supra), claimant Nos.1 and 2, parents
of the deceased are 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 21,16,800
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of Filial consortium 80,000
Total 22,26,800
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.22,26,800/- as against
Rs.6,88,000/- 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
DM
