Karnataka High Court

Rudhranamma vs The Manager on 23 November, 2023

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2023:KHC:42200
                                                         MFA No. 7587 of 2022




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                           BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7587 OF 2022 (MV)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    RUDHRANAMMA
                         W/O LATE SHANKARAPPA
                         NOW AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

                   2.    H S VINOD KUMAR @ VANARAJ H S
                         S/O SHANKARAPPA
                         NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

                   3.    H S SATISH
                         S/O SHANKARAPPA
                         NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
                         ALL ARE R/AT HEBBALAPALYA
                         KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK
                         RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
                                                                ...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed   (BY SRI. RAGHU R.,ADVOCATE)
by
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY             AND:
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka          1.    THE MANAGER
                         UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
                         KRUSHIBHAVAN
                         NEXT TO MAGISTRATE COURT
                         NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
                         BENGALURU-560001.

                   2.    VEERABHADRAIAH
                         MAJOR
                         S/O HOOVAIAH
                              -2-
                                          NC: 2023:KHC:42200
                                       MFA No. 7587 of 2022




    R/A NEAR SLN THEATRE
    HESARAGHATTA-88.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY M V., ADVOCATE FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 23.11.2023)



     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:06.03.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.2767/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, XLI ACMM,
BENGALURU, (SCCH-7), 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

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 06.03.2019 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'the

Tribunal') in MVC No.2767/2018.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 23.04.2018 at about 5.00 p.m.

the deceased Shankarappa was proceeding on a TVS XL

bearing registration No.KA-03/MR-8219 from milk diary on

NC: 2023:KHC:42200

Magadi-Gudemaranahalli road to his house. When he

reached near Hebbalapalya bus stand, at that time, a car

bearing registration No.KA-03/MR-8219 which was being

driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the

vehicle of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid

accident, the deceased fell down, sustained grievous

injuries and succumbed to the injuries at 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 No.1

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

rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the

deceased himself. It was further pleaded that the driver of

the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence

as on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that

the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy.

NC: 2023:KHC:42200

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.2 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 claimant No.1 as PW-1 and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On behalf of

respondents, métier any witness was examined nor got

marked 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.12,40,000/- along with interest at the

rate of 7.5% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to

NC: 2023:KHC:42200

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:

(i) Firstly, the claimants claim that at the time of the

accident the deceased was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per

annum by doing agriculture and also doing milk vending

business. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the

monthly income of the deceased as only Rs.12,000/-.

(ii) Secondly, even though there are three

dependents, the Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of

the income of the deceased towards personal expenses

instead of 1/3rd contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS -V-

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER

reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

(iii) Thirdly, 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

NC: 2023:KHC:42200

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.2,00,000/- per annum, 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, claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are majors and

they are not depending upon the income of the deceased.

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the

income of the deceased for personal expenses.

(iii) Thirdly, considering the age and avocation of the

deceased, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

just and reasonable.

NC: 2023:KHC:42200

(iv) Fourthly, in view of the Division Bench decision

of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND

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 7.5% 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 and original records.

9. It is not in dispute that Shankarappa died in the

road traffic accident occurred on 23.04.2018 due to rash

and negligent driving of the car bearing registration

No.KA-03/MR-8219 by its driver.

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

NC: 2023:KHC:42200

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 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY

SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC

5157,PRANAY SETHI (supra). Thus, the monthly

income comes to Rs.15,625/-. The specific case of the

claimants is that claimant Nos. 1 to 3 are depending upon

the income of the deceased. It is also deposed by PW1

that claimant No.3 is suffering from illness and he was

depending upon the deceased. To disprove the same,

nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross-

examination of PW1 by the respondents. Therefore, 1/3rd

of the income of the deceased has to be deducted for

personal expenses and the amount comes to Rs.10,417/-.

Multiplier applicable to his age group is '13'. Thus, the

claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.16,25,052/-

(Rs.10,417*12*13) on account of 'loss of dependency'. In

addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on

account of 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/- on account of

NC: 2023:KHC:42200

'funeral expenses'. In view of the law laid down by the

Supreme Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE

(supra), the claimants are entitled for compensation of

Rs.40,000/- 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             16,25,052

           Funeral expenses                  15,000

           Loss of estate                    15,000

           Loss of spousal                   40,000
           consortium

           Loss of Parental                  80,000
           consortium

                            Total        17,75,052

12. In view of the above, I pass the following order: