Karnataka High Court
Smt. G M Sunitha vs Sri. Hiriyanna H P on 31 May, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.947 OF 2021 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. G.M.Sunitha,
W/o Late Mallikarjuna G R,
Aged about 57 years,
2. Smt. Manjamma,
W/o Ramashetty,
Aged about 77 years,
3. Smt. Ramashetty G C,
W/o Errashetty,
Aged about 82 years,
4. Smt. G.M. Archana,
D/o Late Mallikarjuna G R,
W/o Nagesh,
Aged about 34 years,
5. Master.Ayush,
S/o G.M.Archana,
Aged about 12 years,
Since, Minor Rep by his
Mother Natural Guardian,
4th Appellant.
All are residing at:
No.54/4, New Municipality Road,
Kodlipete, Somavarapete Taluk,
2
Kodagu District - 571 236.
Presently residing at Bogadi Village,
Mysuru Taluk & District - 570 026.
6. Smt. G.M. Aparna,
W/o Ravi,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at Bandihalli,
Sakaleshpura Taluk,
Hassan District - 573 201.
7. Smt. G.M. Ashwini,
W/o Pradeep,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at Arkalagudu,
Hassan District - 573 201.
8. Smt. G.M. Chaitra,
W/o Santhosh P,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at No.6, Kaval Byrasandra,
R T Nagar, Bengaluru - 560 032.
... Appellants
(By Sri.Tejas.N., Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri.Hiriyanna.H.P.,
S/o Papaiah,
R/at Haradurapura Village,
Ganjalagudu post,
Arakalagudu taluk,
Hassan District - 573 201.
(Driver of KSRTC bearing
Reg.No.KA-18-F-157) Badge No.6603)
2. The Manager,
KSRTC Depot,
Sakaleshpura depot,
3
Hassan - 573 201.
... Respondents
(By Sri. V.G. Bhanu Prakash., Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 is dispensed with)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated 22.08.2019 passed
in MVC No.1538/2018 on the file of the III Additional
District Judge and MACT, Mysuru partly allowing the claim
petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
This MFA, coming on for Admission, this day, this
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 22.08.2019 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru in MVC
No.1538/2018.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 21.11.2017 at about 11.15
a.m. the deceased Mallikarjuna was proceeding on his
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-12/J-738
towards Yelasur. At that time, a KSRTC bus bearing
registration No.KA-18/F-157 which was being driven
in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the
vehicle in which deceased was proceeding. 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
No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written
statement in which the averments made in the
petition were denied. The age, occupation and income
of the deceased are denied. It was pleaded that the
petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law.
It was further pleaded that the accident was due to
the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the
deceased himself. It was further pleaded that the
quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is
exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the
petition.
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 claimants, in order to
prove their case, examined themselves as PW1 and
PW2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to
Ex.P12. On behalf of respondents, one witness was
examined as RW-1 and no documents were got
exhibited. 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.6,92,036/- along
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the
Corporation 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 retired employee of Police Department and
earning Rs.25,000/- per month. But the Tribunal is
not justified in taking the monthly income of the
deceased as only Rs.8,500/-.
Secondly, as per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. PRANAY SETHI AND
OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the
claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of
estate' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'.
Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANU RAM reported in
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'. Hence, he
sought for enhancement of compensation.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Corporation has raised the following counter-
contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the
deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- 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. Hence, he sought 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
Mallikarjuna 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.25,000/- 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 2017, the notional
income of the deceased has to be taken at
Rs.11,000/- p.m. Since there are 3 dependents, the
Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income of
the deceased towards personal expenses and
remaining amount, i.e., Rs.7,334/- has to be taken as
his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged
about 60 years at the time of the accident and
multiplier applicable to his age group is '9'. Thus, the
claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.7,92,072/- (Rs.7,334*12*9) 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'. Claimant No.1, wife of the
deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-
under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE' (supra), claimant Nos.2 and 3, parents
of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each
under the head 'filial consortium' and claimant Nos.4,
6, 7 and 8, children of the deceased are entitled for
compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of
'loss of parental consortium'.
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 7,92,072
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of Parental 1,60000
consortium
Loss of Filial consortium 80,000
Total 11,02,072
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.11,02,072/- as against
Rs.6,92,036/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The Corporation 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
Cm/-
