Karnataka High Court
B G Leela vs C S Somegowda on 27 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.5291 OF 2021(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. B G LEELA
W/O SHASHI KUMAR G N
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
2. AMOGH SHASHIKUMAR
S/O G.N. SHASHIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 551/M
1ST FLOOR 1ST B CROSS
NEAR WATER TANK
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BENGALURU-560079.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SHANTHARAJ K., ADV.)
AND:
1. C S SOMEGOWDA
S/O SWAMY GOWDA
CHINAKURULI VILALGE AND POST
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571401.
2. HDFC ERGO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BY ITS MANAGER
MAHARAJA COMPLEX
2
OPPOSITE SUBURB BUS STAND
NAZARABAD
BENGALURU NILGIRI ROAD
MYSURU-570 010.
...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
11.06.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.69/2017 ON THE FILE OF
THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AS A
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, 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:
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 11.06.2020 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru in MVC
No.69/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 07.09.2016 at about 06.00
P.M., when the deceased was proceeding on
Motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-14-X-7013
near Sapthagiri Bar very carefully and cautiously, at
that time, all of a sudden, the driver of the Lorry
bearing Registration No.KA-09-A-5069 drove the same
with rash and negligent manner came from the back
side and hit the motorcycle of the deceased and front
left wheel of the said Lorry ran over the head 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. It was pleaded that the petition
itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The driver
of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving
licence to drive HGV as on the date of the accident
and the deceased also did not possess valid driving
licence. It was further pleaded that the driver of the
offending vehicle did not have valid and effective
route permit and fitness certificate to ply on the road.
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 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.P20.
On behalf of respondents, neither examined any
witness nor exhibited any document on their behalf.
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.22,10,000/- 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. Sri Shantharaj. K, learned counsel for the
claimants has contended that 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], 25% of the
income of the deceased has to be added. The Tribunal
has failed to consider this aspect of the matter.
Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation.
7. On the other hand, Sri B. Pradeep, learned
counsel for the Insurance Company has contended
that since the claimants have not established the
income of the deceased, they are not entitled for
compensation towards 'future prospects'. 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 Shashi Kumar G. N.
died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its
driver.
The only ground which has been challenged by
the claimants in this appeal is that the Tribunal has
failed to consider the future prospects.
In view of the law laid down by the Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court in 'PRANAY SETHI'
(supra), 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 aged between 40-50
years. In view of the same, since the Tribunal has
considered the age of the deceased as 49 years, 25%
has to be added for future prospects. The Tribunal has
assessed the annual income of the deceased as
Rs.2,40,000/-. Thus, the annual income comes to
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.2,40,000+25% of annual income).
Since there are two dependents, the Tribunal has
rightly deducted 1/3rd towards 'personal expenses' and
thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to
Rs.2,00,000/- and multiplier applicable to his age
group is '13'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.26,00,000/- (Rs.2,00,000*13) on
account of 'loss of dependency'.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on
the 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 26,00,000
Transportation and 25,000
funeral expenses
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of consortium 40,000
Loss of Love and 50,000
Affection
Total 27,30,000
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.27,30,000/- as against
Rs.22,10,000/- 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
HA/-
