Karnataka High Court
Jayamma vs Javarappa K C on 30 May, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No. 8787 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
JAYAMMA
W/O LATE. RAJU
NOW AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HACHEPURA DODDI,
HUYAMBALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT-562 126.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JAVARAPPA. K.C
S/O SANNA NINGAIAH
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT, NO.434, 13TH MAIN ROAD,
MANJUNATHA NAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 010.
2. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO, LTD.,
GROUND AND FIRST FLOOR,
RUKMINI TOWERS 3-1,
2
PLATFORM ROAD/RAILWAY APPROACH
ROAD, SHESHADRIPURA,
BANGALORE-560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.PRADEEP ADVOCATE FOR R-2.
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED: 29.6.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.3772/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL JUDGE & XXVIII
ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
(SCCH-13) 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 is filed under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act', for short) by the claimant being aggrieved
by the judgment dated 29.06.2018 passed by the
Court of Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.3772
of 2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 20.05.2015, when the
deceased was pedestrian at Amruthi village, Melukote
Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya, at that time, a car
bearing registration No.KA-04-MK-4064, which was
being driven 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 claimant 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 claimant, in order to
prove her case, examined herself as PW-1 and
another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. 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 claimant is
entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,86,601/- 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, Sri. Range Gowda
N.R. appearing for the claimant has raised the
following contentions:
Firstly, 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], the claimants are
entitled for future prospects. The tribunal has not
considered addition of future prospects.
Secondly, he contends that the claimant is the
wife of the deceased. In view of judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA
AND OTHERS -v- DELHI TRANSPORT
CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121, the tribunal instead of deducting 1/3rd of the
income for personal expenses has deducted 50%.
Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.
7. On the other hand, Sri. B. Pradeep,
learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised
the following counter-contentions:
Firstly, he contends that, wife is the only
claimant, therefore, the tribunal has rightly deducted
50% of the income of the deceased for personal
expenses.
Secondly, 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 Raju died
in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
The claimant claims that deceased was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month. But she has 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 2015, the notional
income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.9,000/-
p.m. The tribunal has rightly assessed the notional
income.
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.12,000/-. Since, deceased is a
married person, the claimant is the wife, therefore,
1/3rd of the income of the deceased has to be
deducted for personal expenses and remaining
amount has to be taken as contribution to his family,
i.e. Rs.8,400/-. The tribunal has rightly taken the
multiplier as '15'. Thus, the claimant is entitled to
compensation of Rs.15,12,000/- (Rs.8,400*12*15) on
account of 'loss of dependency'. The compensation
awarded on the other heads is just and reasonable,
the same has been retained.
10. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 15,12,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of consortium 40,000
Medical expenses 6,601
Total 15,88,601
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.15,88,601/- as against
Rs.8,86,601/- 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
JY
