Karnataka High Court

Smt. Manju @ Manju Parkavi vs Mr. G. Subramani on 31 May, 2022

Bench: B.Veerappa, K S Hemalekha

                           1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2022

                        PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

                          AND

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3034/2016 (MV-D)


BETWEEN:

1.      SMT. MANJU @ MANJU PARKAVI,
        @ MANJU BHARGAVI,
        W/O RANJITH M.,
        AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

2.      SMT. PONNI @ VENI,
        W/O MUTTU M.,
        AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

3.      SRI MUTHU M.,
        S/O LATE MUNISWAMY,
        AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT,
NO.7, II FLOOR,
4TH CROSS,
RAMAPPA LAYOUT,
THAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
                                        ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GOPAL L.T., ADVOCATE)
                              2



AND:

1.     MR. G. SUBRAMANI,
       S/O GANESHAPPA,
       MAJOR,
       R/AT NO.13, RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT,
       ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK,
       BENGALURU DISTRICT.

2.     THE BRANCH MANAGER,
       HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSU CO.LTD.,
       1ST FLOOR, H.M.GENEVA HOUSE,
       NO.14, CUNNINGAM ROAD,
       BENGALURU - 560 052.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
 VIDE ORDER DATED 20.08.2018 NOTICE TO R1 IS
 DISPENSED WITH)
                         ****

       THIS    MISCELLANEOUS     FIRST    APPEAL   IS   FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.08.2015 PASSED IN
MVC NO.302/14 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL
SMALL    CAUSE    JUDGE,    MEMBER, MACT,      BANGALORE,
PARTLY        ALLOWING     THE   CLAIM     PETITION      FOR
COMPENSATION        AND     SEEKING      ENHANCEMENT      OF
COMPENSATION.


       THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON
FOR    ADMISSION,    THIS    DAY,     K.S.HEMALEKHA       J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  3


                          JUDGMENT

The claimants have preferred the present

Miscellaneous First Appeal assailing the judgment and

award dated 31.08.2015 in MVC No.302/2014 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, XX Additional Small

Causes Judge, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the

Tribunal" for short), seeking enhancement of

compensation.

2. The parties herein are referred to as per their

ranking before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The claimants being the wife and parents of

deceased M. Ranjith filed claim petition under Section 166

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short),

seeking compensation of Rs.27,50,000/- on account of

death of one M. Ranjith in a road traffic accident that

occurred on 25.12.2013, when the deceased was

proceeding in a moped bearing registration No.KA-23-BT-

5141 from Bommanahalli towards Silk Board, near Rupena

Agrahara, Hosur Road, at that time, a Canter bearing

registration No.KA-51-B-3885 came in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the moped. Due to

the impact of the accident, the deceased Ranjith

succumbed to the injuries. It is the contention of the

claimants that the deceased was hale and healthy at the

time of the accident and was earning Rs.20,000/- per

month. It is the contention of the claimants that the

deceased was sole bread winner of the family and

claimants were depending upon the income of the

deceased. On these grounds, claimants sought for

compensation.

4. In pursuance of the summons issued by the

Tribunal, respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle though

served with notice, did not appear and was placed

ex-parte.

5. Respondent No.2-insurance company appeared

and filed written statement contending that the driver of

the Canter bearing registration No.KA-51-B-3885 did not

possess valid and effective driving licence as on the date of

the accident and thus, the insurance company is not liable

to pay the compensation as sought by the claimants and

sought to dismiss the claim petition.

6. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings

framed the following issues:

1. Whether petitioners prove that the accident that occurred on 25.12.2013 at about 2.50 a.m., near rupena Agrahara Bus Stop, Hosur Road, Bangalore, was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper Lorry bearing reg. No.KA-51-B-3885 by its driver and dashed against the petitioner's Moped bearing reg. No.TN-23-BT-5141, due to which the deceased succumbed to the injuries on spot?

2. Whether 2nd Respondent proves that the driver of the Tipper Lorry bearing reg.No.KA- 51-B-3885 was not holding valid and effective driving as on the date of accident?

3. whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom?

4. What order or award?

7. Claimants, in order to substantiate their case,

claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got marked

13 documents at Exs.P-1 to P-13. On the other hand,

respondent No.2/insurance company did not chose to lead

any evidence nor got marked documents on their behalf.

8. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings,

evidence and the material on record, held that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the Canter bearing registration No. No.KA-51-B-3885 and

due to the impact of the accident, deceased M. Ranjith

succumbed to the injuries and also held that respondent

No.2 failed to prove that the driver of the Canter was not

having driving licence as on the date of the accident and

fastened the liability upon respondent No.2/insurance

company by awarding total compensation of

Rs.10,95,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of

the petition till the date of realization under the following

heads:

For Loss of dependency Rs.10,20,000-00 For Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000-00 For Loss of love and Rs. 20,000-00 affection For funeral and obsequies Rs. 25,000-00 ceremony For Loss of Estate Rs. 20,000-00 TOTAL Rs.10,95,000-00

9. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal being on the lower side, the

claimants are filed the present appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation.

10. Heard learned counsel Sri Gopal L.T. appearing

for the appellants and the learned counsel Sri H.S.

Lingaraju for respondent No.2.

11. Learned counsel for the claimants would

contend that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the

deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month against the documents,

which was produced by the claimants to show that the

deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as the

deceased was in sand business, the same was not

appreciated by the Tribunal and the income taken by the

Tribunal is much on the lower side. It is contended that the

Tribunal has not awarded future prospects as per the

dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others [2017 ACJ 2700] It is further contended that the

amount awarded under the other conventional heads is

much on the lower side and needs to be enhanced.

Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance

company would contend that the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any

interference in the hands of this Court and sought to

dismiss the appeal.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only

point that arises for our consideration is:

"Whether the claimants have made out a case for enhancement of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case?"

14. The date, time, occurrence of the accident and

that the deceased M. Ranjith succumbed to injuries due to

the accident that occurred on 25.12.2013 due to rash and

negligent driving of the Canter bearing registration No.KA-

51-B-3885 are not in dispute. The claimants though

contended that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per

month, no materials are forthcoming and the Tribunal has

taken Rs.7,500/- per month as notional income of the

deceased. The same is not acceptable, as per the

guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority,

Bengaluru, for the accidents that occurred in the year

2013 and when no documents are forthcoming to establish

the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per

month, the notional income to be taken is Rs.8,000/- as

against Rs.7,500/- taken by the Tribunal (adding 40% to

Rs.8,000/- towards future prospects as in the dictum of

the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi stated supra

would be Rs.3,200/-) the total income arrived at is

Rs.11,200/- per month and as per the dictum of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009)6 SCC 121],

1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased needs to

be deducted as the dependents are three in number, loss

of dependency is arrived at Rs.7,467/-. Considering the

age of the deceased as 29 years, the applicable multiplier

is 17. Thus, a sum of Rs.15,23,268/- is arrived at towards

loss of dependency (7,467 x 12 x 17 X 1/3 =

Rs.15,23,268/-).

15. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- and

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and loss of

consortium respectively, which needs to be enhanced. In

view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

United India Insurance Company Limited vs.

Satinder Kaur and others [AIR 2020 SC 3076] &

Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu

Ram & Others [2018 ACJ 2782], the claimants are

entitled to spousal and parental consortium which would

come to Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/-x3).

Thus, the total reassessed compensation is as under:

Sl. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs.

No.

      1     Loss of dependency           15,23,268.00
      2     Loss    of   spousal and  1,20,000.00
            parental consortium
            (40,000 x 3)
      3     Loss of estate              20,000.00
            (as awarded by the
            Tribunal)
      4     Funeral and obsequies       25,000.00
            expenses
            (as awarded by the
            Tribunal)
                       Total         16,88,268.00

16. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of

Rs.10,95,000/- and deducting the same out of

Rs.16,87,268/-, the claimants are entitled to enhanced

compensation of Rs.5,93,268/-. The enhanced

compensation amount would carry interest @ 6% p.a.

from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Accordingly, we answer the point framed for consideration

partly in affirmative favouring the claimants.

17. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in

part.