Karnataka High Court
Arun P vs Sakeer Ali 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.150 OF 2022(MV)
C/W
MFA No.201 OF 2022(MV)
IN MFA NO. 150/2022
BETWEEN:
1. ARUN P,
S/O LATE PAPANNA M,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
2. RAKSHITHA P
D/O LATE PAPANNA M,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
RAGHAVAPURA VILLAGE,
GUNDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT -571 111.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M Y, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SAKEER ALI
S/O KUNJI MOTHEEN,
MAJOR,
R/AT KAITHAKKAL HOUSE,
PARAPPANAGADI POST,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 504.
2
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, BLOCK-2A,
ESQUIRE CENTRE, NO.9,
M C ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION OF 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
03.09.2021 IN MVC NO.429/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, GUNDLUPET, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 201/2022
BETWEEN:
1. ARUN P,
S/O LATE PAPANNA M,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
2. RAKSHITHA P
D/O LATE PAPANNA M,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
RAGHAVAPURA VILLAGE,
GUNDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT -571 111.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M Y, ADVOCATE)
3
AND:
1. SAKEER ALI
S/O KUNJI MOTHEEN,
MAJOR,
R/AT KAITHAKKAL HOUSE,
PARAPPANAGADI POST,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 504.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR, BLOCK-2A,
ESQUIRE CENTRE, NO.9,
M C ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION OF 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
03.09.2021 IN MVC NO.428/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, GUNDLUPET, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MFAs ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON JUDGMENT
MFA No.150/2022 and MFA No.201/2022 are
filed by the common claimants challenging the
judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Gundlupet dated 03.09.2021 in
4
MVC Nos.429/2019 and 428/2019, respectively
seeking enhancement of compensation. Since both the
appeals are arising out of the same accident, both the
appeals are clubbed, heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Facts
giving rise to the filing of the appeals
briefly stated are that on 14.10.2019 at about 07.30
A.M., the deceased namely Puttasiddamma in
MVC No.429/2019 as a pillion rider and her husband
Papanna.M in MVC No.428/2019 as a rider were
proceeding on motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-
53-J-340 from Begur side towards Gundlupet side
slowly on the left side of the road. When they
reached near Telephone Exchange, Garaganahalli
Gate, Gundlupet, the driver of the Hyundai Car
bearing Registration No.KL-65-L-6302 came from
Beguru side towards Gundlupet in high speed, very
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
motorcycle from back side. As a result of the aforesaid
accident, Papanna.M in MVC No.428/2019 died on the
spot and Puttasiddamma in MVC No.429/2019
sustained grievous injuries and on the way to Hospital
she succumbed to the injuries.
3. The claimants filed separate petition under
Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the
death of their parents along with interest.
4. On service of summons, the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle have appeared through counsel and
only respondent No.2 has filed written statement in
which the averments made in the petition were denied
in both the appeals. 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 as on the date of the accident. The
liability is subject to terms and conditions of the
policy. The age, occupation and income of both 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.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence in both the petitions. The
claimants in MVC No.429/2019, in order to prove their
case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and another
witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely
Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. The claimants in MVC No.428/2019,
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 in both the
appeals, neither examined any witness nor exhibited
any document. 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,
both deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to
the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the
claimants are entitled to a compensation in MVC
No.429/2019 of Rs.10,85,000/- and in MVC
No.428/2019 of Rs.5,72,000/- 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, these appeals have
been filed.
IN MVC NO.429/2019
6. Sri Sreenivasan M.Y., learned counsel for
the claimants has raised the following contention:
The deceased-Puttasiddamma is the mother of
the claimants. They claim that the deceased was aged
about 46 years at the time of the accident and she
was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working in
private factory and doing milk vending. But the
Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income
of the deceased as merely as Rs.10,000/-. Hence, he
sought for enhancement of compensation.
7. Per contra, Sri B. Pradeep, learned counsel
for the Insurance Company has raised the following
counter-contention:
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.
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 Puttasiddamma
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.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 2019, the notional
income of the deceased has to be taken at
Rs.14,000/- p.m.
To the aforesaid income, 25% 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 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY
SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157]. Thus, the
monthly income comes to Rs.17,500/-. The Tribunal
has rightly deducted 50% of income of the deceased
towards personal expenses. Thus, the monthly income
comes to Rs.8,750/-. The deceased was aged about
46 years at the time of the accident and multiplier
applicable to his age group is '13'. Thus, the claimants
are entitled to compensation of Rs.13,65,000/-
(Rs.8,750*12*13) on account of 'loss of dependency'.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on
other heads is just and reasonable.
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under different Heads Amount in (Rs.)
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 13,65,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of Parental 80,000
consortium
Total 14,75,000
IN MVC NO.428/2019
11. Sri Sreenivasan M.Y., learned counsel for
the claimants has raised the following contention:
Firstly, the deceased-Papanna M is the father of
the claimants. They claim that the deceased was aged
about 61 years at the time of the accident and he was
earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as
agriculturist and doing milk vending. But the Tribunal
is not justified in taking the monthly income of the
deceased as merely as Rs.11,000/-. Hence, he sought
for enhancement of compensation.
Secondly, the claimants are entirely depending
upon the income of the deceased. The Tribunal
instead of deducting 1/3rd of the income of the
deceased for personal expenses, has erred in
deducting 50%. Hence, he sought for allowing the
appeal.
12. Per contra, Sri B. Pradeep, learned counsel
for the Insurance Company has raised the following
counter-contention:
Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the
deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- 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, at the time of the accident, the
deceased was aged about 61 years, therefore, the
claimants are not depending upon the income of the
deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly deducted
50% of the income of the deceased towards 'personal
expenses'. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the
appeal.
13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
14. It is not in dispute that Papanna M 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.15,000/- 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 2019, the notional
income of the deceased has to be taken at
Rs.14,000/- p.m.
At the time of the accident, the deceased was
aged 61 years, hence, no additional income can be
added towards future prospects. Therefore, the
claimants are not entitled for the compensation
towards future prospects. Claimant No.1 being the
unmarried daughter and claimant No.2 being the son,
they are entirely depending upon the income of the
deceased. Therefore, 1/3rd of the income of the
deceased has to be deducted for personal expenses.
Thus the monthly income of the deceased comes to
Rs.9,334/-. The deceased was aged 61 years at the
time of the accident, the Tribunal has rightly taken the
multiplier applicable to his age group as '7'. Thus, the
claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.7,84,056/- (Rs.9,337*12*7) on account of 'loss of
dependency'.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on
the other heads is just and reasonable compensation.
15. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount
different Heads in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 7,84,056
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of Parentalconsortium 80,000
Total 8,94,056
16. In the result, the appeals are allowed in
part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
The claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.8,94,056/- as against
Rs.5,72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in MVC
No.428/2019 and claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.14,75,000/- as against
Rs.10,85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in MVC
No.429/2019.
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/-
