Karnataka High Court
Smt.Rangamma vs Sri.Dayananda G.H on 15 December, 2023
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45718
MFA No. 3919 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3919 OF 2021 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.RANGAMMA
W/O LATE PUTTARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
2. SMT PUSHPALATHA A P
D/O LATE PUTTARAJU A BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
3. MASTER VINODA
S/O LATE PUTTARAJU
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS
BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL GUARDIAN HER
MOTHER IST APPELLANT
4. SMT THOLASAMMA
Digitally signed
by W/O LATE NAGANNA
DHANALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
MURTHY
Location: High ALL ARE R/O AVARAGALLU VILLAGE
Court of MEDIGESHI HOBLI
Karnataka
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SATHISHA T.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.DAYANANDA G.H.
S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA G
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45718
MFA No. 3919 of 2021
R/O GUNDLAHALLI VILLAGE
D V HALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572101.
2. LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
OFFICE NO.1, ALYSSA
IST FLOOR, REAR PORTION
OLD NO.28, NEW NO.23
RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALURU-560025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY.,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: 02.03.2021
PASSED IN MVC NO. 1395/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND M.A.C.T., TUMAKURU,
SITTING AT MADHUGIRI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE 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 02.03.2021 passed by the IV Addl.
District Judge and MACT, Tumakuru, sitting at Madhugiri
(for short 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.1395/2018.
NC: 2023:KHC:45718
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 20.10.2018 at about 6.00 p.m.
the deceased Puttaraju was proceeding on the left side of
the road in Chikkanahalli village, Madhugiri-Pavagada
main road, at that time, a car bearing registration No.KA-
05/MM-5671 which was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a
result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased fell down,
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries
at the spot.
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 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 accident was
due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It was
NC: 2023:KHC:45718
further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed
by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, they 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. The claimants, 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. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was
examined nor got exhibited documents. 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.18,64,000/- along
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the
Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount
NC: 2023:KHC:45718
along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been
filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimants has
raised the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, the claimants claim that at the time of the
accident the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per
month. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the
monthly income of the deceased as only Rs.10,000/-.
(ii) Secondly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM reported in 2018
ACJ 2782, each of the claimants are entitled for
compensation under the head of 'loss of love and affection
and consortium'. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has raised the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the
deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, the same is
NC: 2023:KHC:45718
not established by the claimants by producing documents.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of
the deceased notionally.
(ii) Secondly, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards 'transportation expenses' and the
same is contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY
SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157.
(iii) Thirdly, considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the 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 judgment and award.
9. It is not in dispute that Puttaraju died in the
road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
NC: 2023:KHC:45718
10. The claimants have not produced any evidence or
documents with regard to the income of the deceased.
Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed as per
the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place in
the year 2018, the notional income has to be taken at
Rs.12,500/- p.m. To the aforesaid amount, 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 PRANAY SETHI (supra). Thus, the monthly income
comes to Rs.15,625/-, out of which, it is appropriate to
deduct 1/4th towards personal expenses and therefore, the
monthly income comes to Rs.11,719/-. The deceased was
aged about 40 years at the time of the accident and
multiplier applicable to his age group is '15'. Thus, the
claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.21,09,420/-
(Rs.11,719*12*15) on account of 'loss of dependency'. In
addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.16,500/- on
account of 'loss of estate' and Rs.16,500/- on account of
'funeral expenses'. In view of the law laid down by the
NC: 2023:KHC:45718
Supreme Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE
(supra), the claimants are entitled for compensation of
Rs.44,000/- each under the head of 'loss of consortium'.
11. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 21,09,420
Funeral expenses 16,500
Loss of estate 16,500
Loss of spousal 44,000
consortium
Loss of Parental 88,000
consortium
Loss of Filial consortium 44,000
Total 23,18,420
12. In view of the above, I pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment of the claims Tribunal is modified.
The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of
NC: 2023:KHC:45718
Rs.23,18,420/- in place of Rs.18,64,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest @ 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
