Karnataka High Court
Sri Chikkanna T vs The National Insurance Co Ltd on 26 May, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MAY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.7040 OF 2018(MV)
BETWEEN
1 . SRI CHIKKANNA T
S/O LATE THIMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
2 . SMT LAKSHMINARASAMMA
@ LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE THIMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/O JAYANAGAR, 'C' BLOCK
D.NO.821/8, DAVANAGERE-577004
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MELGIRI PLAZA, OPP: DENTAL COLLEGE,
DAVANAGERE 577001
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
2
2. SRI RAJESH B HURUGOPPA
S/O BASAVARAJ
MAJOR, AGE NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANTS
R/O HOUSE NO.875/L-B,
GULAB SINGH WADA, TIKARE ROAD,
DHARWAD CITY-581001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
12/03/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.525/2017, ON THE
FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
V ADDITIONAL MACT, DAVANGERE, 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 12.3.2018 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Davanagere in
MVC 525/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 20.3.2017, when the
deceased Priyanka along with others were proceeding
in car bearing registration No.KA-25-MB-3906 near
Madhanabhavi Village bus stop, Honnali Taluk, at that
time, the driver of the said car drove the same 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.
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 respondents
appeared through counsel and filed written statements
in which the averments made in the petition were
denied.
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 two other witnesses as PWs-2 and 3 and got
exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P44. On
behalf of respondents, no witness was examined but
got exhibited documents namely 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 claimants are entitled to a compensation
of Rs.17,43,600/- along with interest at the rate of
8% 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 26 years at the time of the accident
and she was a B.E.(Civil) Graduate and she was
earning Rs.40,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per month by
working on civil side under the Contractors. But the
Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income
of the deceased as merely as Rs.12,000/-.
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 has been
rightly considered by the Tribunal.
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.40,000/- to Rs.80,000/- 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.
Fourthly, the interest awarded by the Tribunal on
the compensation amount at 8% p.a. 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 deceased Priyanka
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.40,000/- to Rs.80,000/- 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. Considering the
age of the deceased and considering that the
deceased was a B.E. (Civil) graduate and had a bright
future, I am of the opinion that the notional income
can be taken at Rs.15,000/- 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.21,000/-. Since she was spinster
at the time of her death in the accident, it is
appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the
deceased towards personal expenses and remaining
amount has to be taken as her contribution to the
family. 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.21,42,000/-
(Rs.21,000*12*17*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), claimants, 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 21,42,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of Filial consortium 80,000
Total 22,52,000
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.22,52,000/- as against
Rs.17,43,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 8%
p.a. (the enhanced amount shall carry 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
