Karnataka High Court
Radha @ Radhamma vs C V Manu Kumar on 23 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.4878 OF 2020(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. RADHA @ RADHAMMA
W/O. LATE. NARASIMHA
@ NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
2. N. SHASHI
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
D/O. LATE. NARASIMHA
@ NARASIMHAPPA.
3. SATHISHA
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS
S/O. LATE. NARASIMHA
@ NARASIMHAPPA.
4. JAYARAMA
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
S/O. LATE. NARASIMHA
@ NARASIMHAPPA,
R/AT AVANI VILLAGE
MULBAGAL TALUK
NOW R/AT C/O. NAGESH
9TH CROSS, NEAR MILK DAIRY
2
KARANJIKATTE, KOLAR
(APPELLANT Nos.2 TO 4 ARE
MINORS REP BY THEIR MOTHER
1ST APPELLANT RADHAMMA)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.VISHWANATHA K., ADV.)
AND
1 . C V MANU KUMAR
S/O. VENKATARAMU C V
R/AT NEAR SCANDA GARAGE
MANDANAYAKANAHALLI
DASANAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE.
2 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO
BAGALUR MANSION
DODDAPET, KOLAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HARINI SHIVANAND, 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
15.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.171/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE C/C PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM
AT MACT, KOLAR, 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 and award dated
15.6.2019 passed by the Court of the I Addl. Senior
Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar
in MVC 171/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 4.5.2017, when the
deceased Narasimha was proceeding on two wheeler
bearing registration No.KA-02-ET-2378 on Mulbagal
Bangalore road near Kantharaja Circle, at that time, a
Eicher vehicle bearing registration No.KA-34-5180
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.P12.
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.12,51,250/- 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 42 years at the time of the accident
and he was earning Rs.1,000/- per day by working as
stone cutter. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking
the monthly income of the deceased as merely as
Rs.7,500/-.
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
25% of the established income towards 'future
prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased
was between the age group of 40-50 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, even though the claimants claim that the
deceased was earning Rs.1,000/- 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. 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
Narasimha 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.1,000/- per day. 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 2017, the notional
income of the deceased has to be taken at
Rs.11,000/- p.m.
To the aforesaid income, 25% 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.13,750/-. Since there are 4
dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 3/4th 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 42 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.17,32,500/- (Rs.13,750*12*14*3/4) 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 to 4, 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 17,32,500
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of Parental 120,000
consortium
Total 19,22,500
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.19,22,500/- as against
Rs.12,51,250/- 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.
In view of the order dated 23.6.2022 passed by
this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest
for the delayed period of 193 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
