Karnataka High Court
Smt. Talari Padmavati vs M/S United India Ins Co. Ltd on 7 December, 2023
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44425
MFA No. 4280 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4280 OF 2020 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. TALARI PADMAVATI
W/O TALARI ANJINEYULU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
2. SMT. TALARI NARAYANAMMA
W/O LATE TALARI AKKULAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT C-90
DIGUVAPALLI TAVALAMARRI
ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH 515551
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by 1. M/S UNITED INDIA INS CO. LTD
DHANALAKSHMI MOTOR CLAIMS HUB,
MURTHY
NO.18, 6TH FLOOR,NEAR KRUSHI BHAVANA
Location: High
Court of HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGLAURU 560 001
Karnataka REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
2. MR. VIMAL KUMAR SHARMA
S/O DAMODAR PRASAD SHARMA
WARD NO.12, PRAFULLANAGAR
CANVENT ROAD, BARIPADA DISTRICT
MAYURBHANJ, ORISSA 757 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GEETHA RAJ.,ADVOCATE FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPREENTED)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44425
MFA No. 4280 of 2020
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.02.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO. 4372/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XV
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIII A.C.M.M.,
MEMBER, M.A.C.T., MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU,
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 20.02.2019 passed by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal & XV Addl. Judge, SCCH-19,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal') in
MVC No.4372/2018.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 11.07.2018 at about 3.30 p.m., the
deceased Talari Anjineyulu was proceeding on a
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-53/U-6991. When
he reached on Budigere Cross Flyover, Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore, at that time, a lorry
bearing registration No.OR-11/K-9347 was being parked in
NC: 2023:KHC:44425
the middle of the road. The deceased unable to identify
the parked lorry, tried to control his vehicle but he lost
control and dashed to the lorry. As a result of the
aforesaid accident, the deceased fell down, sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way
to the hospital.
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 statements
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
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:44425
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 got exhibited
documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. On behalf of
respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got
exhibited document namely Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by
the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident
took place on account of negligence of both the rider of
the motorcycle and the driver of the lorry at 10% and
90%, respectively, 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.12,80,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to
deposit 90% of the compensation amount, i.e,
Rs.11,52,000/- along with interest. Being aggrieved, this
appeal has been filed.
NC: 2023:KHC:44425
6. The learned counsel for the claimants has
contended that the claimants claim that at the time of the
accident the deceased earning Rs.12,000/- per month. But
the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income
of the deceased as only Rs.9,000/-. 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.12,000/- 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.
(ii) Secondly, considering the age and avocation of
the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable.
(iii) Thirdly, in view of the Division Bench decision of
this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND
NC: 2023:KHC:44425
OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA
5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on
24.8.2020), the interest granted by the Tribunal at the
rate of 9% p.a. is on the higher side. 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 Talari Anjineyulu died in
the road traffic accident occurred on 11.07.2018 due to
negligence of deceased as well as the driver of the
offending vehicle by its driver at 10% and 90%,
respectively.
10. At the time of the accident the deceased was
aged 47 years he was working as a Security Guard and
earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. Considering the
evidence of PW1, the monthly income of the claimant has
to be assessed as Rs.12,000/- per month. To the aforesaid
amount, the Tribunal rightly considered addition of 25%
on account of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income
NC: 2023:KHC:44425
comes to Rs.15,000/-, out of which, Tribunal has rightly
deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and therefore,
the monthly income comes to Rs.10,000/-. The deceased
was aged about 47 years at the time of the accident and
multiplier applicable to his age group is '13'. Thus, the
claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,60,000/-
(Rs.10,000*12*13) on account of 'loss of dependency'.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other
heads is just and reasonable.
11. 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 compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head
'loss of dependency' is enhanced from Rs.11,70,000/-
to Rs.15,60,000/-. The compensation awarded by the
Tribunal on the other heads remains unaltered.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
90% of the compensation amount along with interest
from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of
NC: 2023:KHC:44425
realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment, excluding interest for the
delayed period of 258 days in filing the appeal.
(iv) The enhanced compensation carries interest @
6% p.a.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CM
