Karnataka High Court

Sri Manappa And Anr vs Kashinath And Anr on 15 April, 2024

Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad

                                                   -1-
                                                     NC: 2024:KHC-K:2975-DB
                                                         MFA No.200816 of 2022




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                             PRESENT

                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
                                               AND
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

                           MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200816 OF 2022 (MV-D)

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   SRI MANAPPA
                           S/O VENKAPPA NAGUR
                           AGED 55 YEARS
                           OCC: AGRICULTURE AND COOLIE

                      2.   SMT. NINGAMMA
                           W/O MANAPPA NAGUR
                           AGED: 51 YEARS
                           OCC: H.H. WORK

Digitally signed by        BOTH ARE R/O MINAJAGI
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ                   TQ: .MUDDEBIHAL
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH
                           DIST: VIJAYAPURA.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                                                                  ...APPELLANTS

                      (BY SMT. RATNA N.SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   KASHINATH
                           S/O GURANAGOUDA BIRADAR
                           AGE: MAJOR
                           OCC: BUSINESS
                           MINAJAGI
                           TQ.MUDDEBIHAL - 586 212.
                              -2-
                               NC: 2024:KHC-K:2975-DB
                                     MFA No.200816 of 2022




2.   THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     SANGAM BUILDING
     P.B NO.60
     S.S. FRONT ROAD
     VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 07.03.2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.02.2020
PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T., VIII,
MUDDEBIHAL IN M.V.C.NO.51/2018 AND AWARD THE
COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE ORIGINAL CLAIM
PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY
H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., 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 04.02.2020 passed by the

Senior Civil Judge & MACT-VIII, Muddebihal in MVC

No.51/2018.

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

stated are that on 18.07.2017, when the deceased

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2975-DB

Venkatesh was standing near the Minajagi Circle on

Talikoti-Minajagi Road, at that time, a tractor and trailer

bearing registration No.KA-28-TC-0874 and KA-28-T-6280

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 respondents appeared

through their respective counsel and filed written

statements denying the averments made in the claim

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 the case,

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2975-DB

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

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On behalf of

respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got

exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R2. 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.942,200/- along with

interest at the rate of 6% 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:

a) Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was

aged about 20 years at the time of the accident and he

was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by working as coolie

and doing agricultural work. But the Tribunal is not

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2975-DB

justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as

merely as Rs.6,000/-.

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 40% of the established

income towards 'future prospects' should be the warrant

where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The

same has been rightly considered by the Tribunal.

c) Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra),

the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of

estate' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'.

d) Fourthly, 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: 2024:KHC-K:2975-DB

e) 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.

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.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.

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

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2975-DB

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 of the Tribunal.

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

traffic accident occurred on 18.07.2017 due to rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

10. The claimants claim that deceased was earning

Rs.12,000/- per month. 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 2017, the notional income of the

deceased has to be taken at Rs.10,250/- p.m. To the

aforesaid income, 40% has been rightly added by the

Tribunal on account of future prospects in view of the law

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2975-DB

laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court

in 'PRANAY SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income

comes to Rs.14,350/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor,

the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income of

the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining

amount has been taken as his contribution to the family.

The deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of the

accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'.

Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of

Rs.15,49,800/- (Rs.14,350*12*18*50%) on account of

'loss of dependency'.

11. In addition, the claimants are entitled to

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

and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral

expenses'.

12. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE' (supra),

claimants, parents of the deceased are entitled for

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2975-DB

compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of 'loss

of filial consortium'.

13. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

compensation:

             Compensation under           Amount in
               different Heads              (Rs.)

            Loss of dependency              15,49,800

            Funeral expenses                   15,000

            Loss of estate                     15,000

            Loss of Filial consortium          80,000

                             Total         16,59,800

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