Karnataka High Court

Veeraveni And Anr vs Jagadish And Anr on 3 April, 2024

Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad

                                                 -1-
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC-K:2785-DB
                                                         MFA No.202237 of 2023




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                         KALABURAGI BENCH

                                DATED THIS THE 3RD 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.202237 OF 2023 (MV-D)

                       BETWEEN:

                       1.   VEERAVENI
                            W/O HANAMALI SHRINU @ SRINIVAS
                            AGE: 44 YEARS
                            OCC: HOUSEHOLD

                       2.   HANAMALI SHRINU @ SRINIVAS
                            S/O VENKATRAO
                            AGE: 48 YEARS
                            OCC: AGRICULTURE

Digitally signed by         BOTH ARE R/O GUDADINNI CAMP
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ                    GUDADINNI K, (CHOWDARY CAMP)
DHUTTARGAON
Location: High Court
                            TALUK : SIRWAR
Of Karnataka
                            DISTRICT : RAICHUR - 585 401.
                                                                  ...APPELLANTS

                       (BY SRI BABU H.METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)

                       AND:

                       1.   JAGADISH
                            S/O DURGAPPA
                            AGE: MAJOR
                            OCC: OWNER OF CAR NO.KA-36/C-0815
                            R/O GUDADINNI K.
                              -2-
                               NC: 2024:KHC-K:2785-DB
                                         MFA No.202237 of 2023




     TALUK: SIRWAR
     DISTRICT : RAICHUR - 585 401.

2.   THE BRANCH MANAGER
     BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
     INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     SITUATED AT MAJESTIC
     1ST FLOOR KALABURAGI
     NOOLVI COTTON MARKET
     HUBLI - 580 029.
     KARNATAKA STATE.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 29.02.2024 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)


       THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR

VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN

M.V.C.NO.309/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT J.M.F.C.-I AND MOTOR VEHICLES

ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT RAICHUR, ALLOW THIS

APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04-

06-2022 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.309/2021 BY THE I ADDITIONAL

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT AND J.M.F.C.-I AND MOTOR

VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT RAICHUR, AND

ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.18,84,400/- WITH

6% INTEREST TO RS.58,88,000/- WITH 12 % INTEREST AND

ETC.


       THIS   MFA   COMING   ON    FOR    HEARING   THIS   DAY,

H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                              -3-
                               NC: 2024:KHC-K:2785-DB
                                     MFA No.202237 of 2023




                        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 04.06.2022 passed by the

I Addl. Sr.Civil Judge Court and JMFC-I & MACT, Raichur in

MVC 309/2021.

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

stated are that on 13.04.2021, when the deceased Rajesh

along with others in order to attend their works were

proceeding in a car bearing registration No.KA-36-C-0815

driven by one Umesh from Harvi Basavanna Camp towards

Manvi on Sirwar Neermanvi main road, near Radhakrishna

Camp, at that time, the driver of the said car drove the

same in a rash and negligent manner, hit to a water tank.

Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained grievous

injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2785-DB

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 only respondent No.2

filed written statement 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,

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

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of

respondents, no witness was examined but got exhibited

document namely Ex.R1. 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.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2785-DB

The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to

a compensation of Rs.18,84,400/- along with interest at

the rate of 7% 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 23 years at the time of the accident and he

was earning Rs.24,000/- per month by doing milk vending

business. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the

monthly income of the deceased as merely as

Rs.12,000/-.

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

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2785-DB

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'.

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.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2785-DB

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.24,000/- 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

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: 2024:KHC-K:2785-DB

at 7% 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 Rajesh died in the road traffic

accident occurred on 13.04.2021 due to rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

10. The claimants claim that deceased was earning

Rs.24,000/- 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 2021, the notional income of the

deceased has to be taken at Rs.14,250/- p.m. To the

aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account of

future prospects in view of the law laid down by the

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2785-DB

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 'PRANAY

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

Rs.19,950/-. 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 23 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.21,54,600/- (Rs.19,950*12*18*50%) on account of

'loss of dependency'.

11. In addition, the claimants are entitled to

compensation of Rs.16,500/- on account of 'loss of estate'

and compensation of Rs.16,500/- 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

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-K:2785-DB

compensation of Rs.44,000/- 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              21,54,600

          Funeral expenses                   16,500

          Loss of estate                     16,500

          Loss of Filial consortium          88,000

                           Total         22,75,600

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