Karnataka High Court

Sri Lakshmana vs Sri Pratish D on 29 November, 2023

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                               -1-
                                                          NC: 2023:KHC:43143
                                                      MFA No. 3481 of 2021




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                           BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3481 OF 2021 (MV)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    SRI LAKSHMANA
                         S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

                   2.    SRI SHASHIDHAR
                         S/O LAKSHMANA
                         AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

                   3.    SRI MADHU
                         S/O LAKSHMANA
                         AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
                         ALL ARE RESIDING AT
                         SHETTIGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
                         MAYASANDRA HOBLI
                         TURUVEKERE TALUK
                         TUMKUR DISTRICT - 586201
Digitally signed
by                                                             ...APPELLANTS
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY             (BY SRI. M V MAHESWARAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka          AND:

                   1.    SRI PRATISH D
                         S/O DODDA SIDDAREDDY L
                         AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
                         R/AT NO 131, DODDAKANNENAHALLI
                         SARJAPURA ROAD
                         CARMELARAM POST
                         BENGALURU - 560035.
                                 -2-
                                             NC: 2023:KHC:43143
                                           MFA No. 3481 of 2021




2.   THE BRANCH MANAGER
     UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
     REGIONAL OFFICE (RO) KRUSHI BHAVAN
     HUB 6TH FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
     HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560001
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 06.01.2020
PASSED IN MVC NO. 4708/2019              ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES,    BENGALURU        (SCCH-18),   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

1. 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 and award dated 6.1.2020 passed by the

MACT, Bengaluru in MVC 4708/2019.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly

stated are that on 15.5.2019, when the deceased

NC: 2023:KHC:43143

Lalithamma was walking on left side of Yadiyuru-Kallur

Road, Shettigondanahalli Cicle, Mayasandra Hobli, at that

time, a car bearing registration No.KA-51-MH-3366 which

was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed

against the deceased. 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 respondent No.1 did not appear before the

Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was placed

ex-parte.

NC: 2023:KHC:43143

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, neither any witness was examined nor any

document was produced. 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.10,91,640/- along with interest at

the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company

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:

NC: 2023:KHC:43143

a) Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was

aged about 48 years at the time of the accident and she

was earning Rs.2,000/- per day by working as bangle

selling business. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking

the monthly income of the deceased as merely as

Rs.9,500/-.

b) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE

CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017

SC 5157], in case the deceased was self-employed or on

a fixed salary, an addition of 25% of the established

income towards 'future prospects' should be the warrant

where the deceased was between the age group of 40-50

years. The same has been considered by the Tribunal.

c) Lastly, 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.

NC: 2023:KHC:43143

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

Insurance Company has raised the following counter-

contentions:

a) Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the

deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per day, 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.

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 awarded by the Tribunal

NC: 2023:KHC:43143

at 8% p.a. on the compensation amount 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 of the Tribunal.

9. It is not in dispute that Lalithamma died in the road

traffic accident occurred on 15.5.2019 due to rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

10. The claimants claim that deceased was earning

Rs.2,000/- per day. 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 2019, the notional income of the

deceased has to be taken at Rs.14,000/- p.m. To the

aforesaid income, 25% has been rightly added on account

of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the

NC: 2023:KHC:43143

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 'PRANAY

SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to

Rs.17,500/-. Since there are 3 dependents, it is

appropriate to deduct 1/3rd of the income of the deceased

towards personal expenses and remaining amount has to

be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased

was aged about 48 years at the time of the accident and

multiplier applicable to her age group is '14'. Thus, the

claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.18,20,000/-

(Rs.17,500*12*13*2/3) on account of 'loss of

dependency'.

11. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under

other heads is just and reasonable.

12. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

compensation:

          Compensation under                  Amount in
            different Heads                     (Rs.)

      Loss of dependency                        18,20,000

                                            NC: 2023:KHC:43143





      Funeral expenses                            15,000

      Loss of estate                              15,000

      Loss of consortium                        1,20,000

      Medical expenses                            15,000

                       Total                 19,85,000

13. In the result, the following order is passed:

ORDER

a) The appeal is allowed in part.

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

Rs.19,85,000/- as against Rs.10,91,640/- 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) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

compensation amount along with interest from the date of

filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within