Karnataka High Court
Sunitabai And Ors vs Venkateshwara Clearing Agency ... on 17 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
M. F. A. NO.200005 OF 2020 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SUNITABAI
W/O LATE AMRUT RAO
AGE: 56 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
2. MOHAN
S/O LATE AMRUT RAO
AGE: 24 YEARS OCC: STUDENT
3. SANTOSH
S/O LATE AMRUT RAO
AGE: 18 YEARS OCC: STUDENT
ALL R/O STATION TANDA MALKHED
TQ: SEDAM DIST: KALABURAGI
NOW AT BANASHANKARI LAYOUT
NEAR GOA HOTEL, BRAHAMPUR
KALABURAGI
..APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANJEEV PATIL, ADV.)
2
AND
1. VENKATESHWARA CLEARING AGENCY
REPRESENTED BY DEEPAK VYAS
AGE: MAJOR OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE
NO.AP29. TC 0597
R/O SY NO. 150 BALAPUR-V
SAROOR NAGAR, RANGA REDDY (AP) 500005
2. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSRUANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE NO. 19
RELIANCE CENTER, WALCHAND
HIRACHAND MARG, BALLARD ESTATE
MUMBAI - 400001
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER
ASIAN PLAZA, TIMMAAPUR CHOWK
KALABURAGI - 585 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL, ADV. FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION TO RS.15,00,000/- ALONG WITH
INTEREST BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF
III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT KALABURAGI
DATED 16.03.2018 IN MVC NO.670/2015.
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 appellants being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.03.2018, passed
in MVC No.670/2015 by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Claims
Tribunal. Appellants are the petitioners and
respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 09.11.2014, the deceased
Amrut Rao was proceeding by walk to Huda-B Village,
near Satyam Complex, Station Tanda Cross, Malkhed,
and at that time, a Lorry bearing registration No.AP-
29/TC-0597 which was being driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed against the
deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed
to the injuries on the spot.
3.1. The petitioners filed a petition under
Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the
death of the deceased along with interest.
3.2. The respondent No.1 did not appear before
the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was
placed ex-parte. The respondent No.2 Insurance
Company appeared through counsel and filed written
statement in which the averments made in the
petition were denied. It was pleaded that the driver of
the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving
licence as on the date of the accident. Respondent
No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, he
sought for dismissal of the petition.
3.3. On the basis of the pleadings of the
parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and
thereafter recorded the evidence. The petitioners, in
order to prove their case, examined petitioner No.1 as
PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to
Ex.P5. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was
adduced, but with the consent of other side, has
produced Ex.R1. 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
petitioners are entitled for compensation and
consequently awarded compensation of Rs.6,58,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed
the respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation
amount along with interest. Being dissatisfied with
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
petitioners have filed the present appeal seeking for
enhancement of compensation amount.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the deceased was an agriculturist and
earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. He further submits that
Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.6,000/-
which is on a lower side. Hence, prays for allowing
the appeal.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the respondent No.2-Insurance Company supports the
impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal. She further submits that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does
not call for interference. Hence, prays for dismissal of
the appeal.
7. Perused the records and considered the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
8. The only point that arise for consideration is
with regard to quantum of compensation.
9. It is not in dispute that the accident has
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver. Further, in order to
prove that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle,
the claimant has produced copy of FIR and charge-
sheet marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Ex.P2 discloses
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, the petitioners have not produced any
evidence or documents with regard to the income of
the deceased. Therefore, the notional income has to
be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the
accident has taken place in the year 2014, the
notional income has to be taken at Rs.7,500/- p.m.
To the aforesaid amount, 10% has to be added on
account of future prospects as the deceased was aged
about 52 years. In view of 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]. Thus, the monthly income
comes to Rs.8,250/-. Out of which, it is appropriate
to deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses and
therefore, the monthly income comes to Rs.5,500/-
(Rs.8250 - Rs.2750). The deceased was aged about
52 years at the time of the accident and multiplier
applicable to his age group is '11'. Thus, the
petitioners are entitled to compensation of
Rs.7,26,000/- (Rs.5,500 x 12 x 11) on account of 'loss
of dependency'.
11. In addition, the petitioners are entitled to
Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate' and
Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'. In view
of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. -v- Nanu Ram [2018 ACJ
2782], each of the petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss
of consortium', which comes to Rs.1,20,000/-. Thus
the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.8,76,000/-.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated
16.03.2018, is modified. The petitioners are entitled
to a total compensation of Rs.8,76,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing
of the claim petition till the date of realization, as
against Rs.6,58,000/- awarded by the Claims
Tribunal. Respondent No.2, Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
amount of Rs.2,18,000/- along with interest, within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of this judgment.
It is made clear that the petitioners are not
entitled for interest on the delayed period i.e., 557
days.
SD/-
JUDGE
RD
