Karnataka High Court
Smt Veena vs Venkatesh.G Dead By Lr'S Sri Galappa on 13 December, 2023
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45302
MFA No. 4135 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4135 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SMT VEENA
W/O LATE SHASHI KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
2. BABY YASHASWINI
D/O LATE SHASHI KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS
MINOR REPRE BY HER MOTHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E
APPELLANT NO. 1
3. SUBBANNA
S/O VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
Digitally signed
by 4. SMT. SIDDAMMA
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY W/O SUBBANNA
Location: High AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
Court of
Karnataka
ALL ARE R/AT CHAMUNDINAGAR
KITTANAHALLI
DASANAPURA HOBLI
BANALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N R.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45302
MFA No. 4135 of 2021
AND:
1. VENKATESH.G
DEAD BY LR'S
SRI. GALAPPA.
S/O HANUMAIAH
NOW AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS
R/O GIDADAPALYA
CHANNENAHALLI DHAKALE
THAVAREKERE HOBLI
BENGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISRICT.
2. THE MANAGER
ICICIL LAMBARD MOTOR
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
NO. 121, 9TH FLOOR
THE ESTATE BUILDING
DIKENSON ROAD
BANGALORE 560 001.
3. SRI M P JAGADISH
S/O PUTTARAJU
AGED MAJOR
R/AT NO. 24 TH MAIN
SRINIVASANAGAR
NANDINI LAYOUT
BANGALORE 560 096.
4. THE MANAGER
ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD
NO. 132, BALAJI SOURGEION
2ND FLOOR, BRIGADE ROAD
NEAR BRIGADE TOWER
BANGALORE 560 025
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUNA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2:
SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R4:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:45302
MFA No. 4135 of 2021
NOTICE TO R1 & R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 13.12.2023)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.04.2021
PASSED IN MVC NO. 6232/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER,
MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-5), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been
filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment
dated 20.04.2021 passed by MACT, Bengaluru in MVC
No.6232/2018.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that 05.09.2018 at about 3.00 a.m., the
deceased Shashikumar along with others was traveling in
Omni Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-MN-4750 on NH-
NC: 2023:KHC:45302
4, Tumkur-Sira Road, near Kataveeranahalli Gate,
Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District, at the same
time, both driver of the Car and the driver of the Lorry
bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-9547 were being driven
rashly and recklessly and negligently with high speed
endangering human life and property and without given
any signal and parked the right side of the Highway Road
and dashed the Lorry. 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 notice, the respondent Nos.2 and 4
appeared through counsel and filed written statement in
which the averments made in the petition were denied. It
was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in
the eye of law. The age, avocation and income of the
NC: 2023:KHC:45302
claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was
further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed
by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for
dismissal of the petition.
The respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not appear before
the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and were 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 No.1 herself was examined as
PW-4 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to
Ex.P67. On behalf of the respondents, two witnesses were
examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. 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 vehicles by their drivers, as a result of which,
the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the
NC: 2023:KHC:45302
injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are
entitled to a compensation of Rs.25,46,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed respondent
Nos.2 and 4/Insurance Companies to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest in the ratio of
50:50. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the
following contentions:
a) Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was
aged about 27 years at the time of the accident and he
was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as driver
and also as a agriculturist. But the Tribunal is not justified
in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as
Rs.11,000/-.
b) Secondly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD. -V- NANU RAM [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'.
NC: 2023:KHC:45302
c) Thirdly, considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing
the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for ICICI
Lambard and Royal Sundaram General Insurance
Companies has raised the following counter-contentions:
a) Firstly, 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.
b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established
the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for
compensation towards 'future prospects'.
c) 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.
NC: 2023:KHC:45302
d) Lastly, in view of the Division Bench decision of this
Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS -V-
VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 AND CONNECTED
MATTERS DISPOSED OF ON 24.8.2020), THE RATE OF interest
granted by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation
amount is on the higher side. Hence, they prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that Shashikumar died in the road
traffic accident occurred on 05.09.2018 due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of Omni Car bearing
Registration No.KA-02-MN-4750 and Lorry bearing
Registration No.KA-02-AD-9547.
10. 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
NC: 2023:KHC:45302
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 2018, the notional income of the
deceased has to be taken at Rs.12,500/- 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 NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC
5157]. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.17,500/-.
Since there are four dependents, it is appropriate to
deduct 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards
personal expenses. Thus, the monthly income comes to
Rs.13,125/-. The deceased was aged about 27 years at
the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his
age group is '17'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.26,77,500/- (Rs.13,125*12*17) on
account of 'loss of dependency'.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45302
11. The compensation awarded under the other heads
are just and reasonable.
12. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 26,77,500
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of Parental 40,000
consortium
Loss of Filial consortium 80,000
Total 28,67,500
13. In the result, I pass the following order:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45302
c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.28,67,500/- as against Rs.25,46,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal.
d) In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of 'MS.JOYEETA BOSE' (supra), the
enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per
annum.
e) Both ICICI Lambard and Royal Sundaram General
Insurance Companies are directed to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest in the ratio of
50:50 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
