Karnataka High Court
Sri Shivashankarappa K vs The National Insurance Co Ltd on 29 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.7146 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI SHIVASHANKARAPPA K
S/O RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
2 . SMT RENUKAMMA
W/O SHIVASHANKARAPPA K
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.219, SHIGGA VILLAGE
SHIGGA(P), SORABA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV. )
AND
1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
R.O. NO. 144, 2ND FLOOR
SUBHARAM COMPLEX
M.G.ROAD
BANGALORE-01.
2. SRI RAMACHANDRA
S/O GODLAPPA
R/AT SHIGGA VILLAGE
2
SHIGGA(P), SORABA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GEETHA RAJ, ADV. FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:23/10/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.6546/2017, ON
THE FILE OF THE VIII-ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM., MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU
(SCCH-5), 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:
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 23.10.2018 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in
MVC No.6546/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 10.10.2017 at about 01.00
P.M., the deceased-Vishwanatha as a pillion rider on
the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-15-V-3890
which was ridden by one Lingaraju at very high speed
in a rash and negligent manner, at that time all of a
sudden, a buffalo came into middle of the road, the
rider was lost his control and fell down sewage. As a
result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased fell
down and 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.1 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 rider
of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving
licence as on the date of the accident. 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.2 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.P10.
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 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.12,83,000/- 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
contended that the claimants claim that the deceased
was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident
and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing a
Chicken Business. But the Tribunal is not justified in
taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely
as Rs.8,000/-. Hence, he prays for enhancement of
compensation.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has contended that even
though the claimants claim that the deceased was
earning Rs.20,000/- 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.
He further contended that in view of judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS vs.
VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 and
connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the
claimants are entitled for 6% interest but the Tribunal
has granted 9% interest is on the higher side. 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 Vishwanath died in
the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and
negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.
The claimants claim that deceased was earning
Rs.20,000/- 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 2017, the notional
income of the deceased has to be taken at
Rs.11,000/- p.m.
The Tribunal considering the law laid down by
the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI
AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], has rightly
considered 40% of the income of the deceased
towards 'future prospects'. Therefore, to the aforesaid
income, 40% has to be added on account of future
prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to
Rs.15,400/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor at
the time of the accident, it is appropriate to deduct
50% of the income of the deceased towards personal
expenses and thus, the monthly income comes to
Rs.7,700/-. The deceased was aged about 26 years at
the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to
his age group is '17'. Thus, the claimants are entitled
to compensation of Rs.15,70,800/- (Rs.7,700*12*17)
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
CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782], claimants
are the parents of the deceased, are entitled for
compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of
'loss of filial consortium' .
The compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal for 'medical expenses' is just and
reasonable.
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 15,70,800
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of Filial consortium 80,000
Medical Expenses 30,000
Total 17,10,800
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.17,10,800/- as against
Rs.12,83,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of 'MS.JOYEETA BOSE', the
enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per
annum.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 9%
p.a. (the 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.
In view of the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by
this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest
for the delayed period of 187 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA/-
