Karnataka High Court
Sri. Doddaiah Shetty vs Sri N. Manjunath 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. 4191 OF 2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. DODDAIAH SHETTY
S/O THIMMASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
2. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O DODDAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT:
CHEERANAHALLI
HOSURU VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT.
PRESENT ADDRESS:
C/O SUN-IN-LAW
DHARMA S/O THIMMASHETTY,
CHIKKAMATHIGATTA VILLAGE,
DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.R.LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. SRI. N.MANJUNATH
S/O NARASIMASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT #657, 12TH MAIN ROAD,
1ST BLOCK, 3RD STAGE,
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 079.
2. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY; REGIONAL
MANAGER, M.I.D.C, T.T.C,
INDUSTRIAL AREA, E.L-94
NAVI MUMBAI-400 710,
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. MALLIKARJUNA N.A, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED: 27.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.371/2018 ON
THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN DISTRICT (SIT AT
CHANNARAYAPATNA), 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:
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 claimants being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.02.2019 passed
by the Court of the 4th Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Hassan District (Sit at Channarayapatna) in
MVC No.371/2018.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 27.12.2017, when the
deceased was proceeding on bike bearing registration
No.KA.13.A.965, at that time, a Maruthi car bearing
registration No. KA.51.ME.7453, 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 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
Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed
written statement 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, Doddaiah
Shetty as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely
Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On behalf of respondents, one
witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited
documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. 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.15,85,000/- 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
raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased
working as Mechanic in Lakshmi Ranganatha Auto
Works. The notional income assessed by the tribunal
is Rs.9,000/-, which is on lower side. As per the
guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the
year 2017, the notional income has to be assessed as
Rs.11,000/-. Hence, he prays for enhancement of
compensation.
7. On the other hand, Sri. Mallikarjun Reddy
for Sri. B. Pradeep, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has raised the following counter-
contentions:
Firstly, the claimants have not produced any
documents to prove the income of the deceased.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the
income of the deceased notionally.
Secondly, he contends that 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, the compensation awarded for
'loss of estate' is on higher side and the compensation
awarded for the love and affection and loss of
consortium is on higher side, the same is contrary to
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V-
NANU RAM.
Lastly, he contends that in view of judgment of a
Division Bench in the case of JOYEETA BOSE -V-
UNITED INSURANCE CO., interest awarded by the
tribunal at 9% is on higher side. Hence, he contends
that 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
Keshavashetty died in the road traffic accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver.
The claimants 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.
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.15,400/-. Since deceased was a
bachelor, 50% of the income of the deceased has to
be deducted towards personal expenses and
remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution
to the family. The deceased was aged about 25 years
at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to
his age group is '18'. Thus, the claimants are entitled
to compensation of Rs.16,63,200/- (Rs.7,700*12*18)
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), claimant Nos.1 and 2, 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 16,63,200
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of Filial consortium 80,000
Total 17,73,200
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.17,73,200/- as against
Rs.15,85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench
of this Court in JOYEETA BOSE (supra), enhanced
compensation carries interest at 6% p.a.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 9%
p.a. (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.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JY
