Karnataka High Court

Narasimhappa @ Narasimhamurthy N vs Royal Sundram General Insurance Co. Ltd on 7 August, 2024

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                                -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:31395
                                                        MFA No. 2455 of 2019




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

                                              BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2455 OF 2019 (MV)
                      BETWEEN:
                      1. NARASIMHAPPA @ NARASIMHAMURTHY N
                         AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
                         S/O.ANJINAPPA

                      2.    SMT LAKSHMAMMA
                            AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
                            W/O NARASIMHAPPA @ NARASIMHAMURTHY N

                      3.    HARISHA
                            S/O NARASIMHAPPA @ NARASIMHAMURTHY N
                            AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
                            ALL ARE RESIDENT OF
                            VEERLAGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE
                            GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
                            CHIKKABALLAPURA-562108.
                                                               ...APPELLANTS
                      (BY SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY D.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
HEMALATHA A
Location: HIGH        AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             1. ROYAL SUNDRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                         NO.187/7, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX
                         HOSUR MIAN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN
                         BENGALURU-560027
                         REP. BY ITS MANAGER.

                      2.    SATHISH
                            AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
                            S/O.CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA
                            R/A.NO.91/48, 1ST FLOOR
                            8TH CROSS, 22ND MAIN ROAD
                              -2-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:31395
                                        MFA No. 2455 of 2019




     HSR LAYOUT
     BENGALURU-560102
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI.,ADVOCATE FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 12.12.2020)
     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 28.08.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.72/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MACT, GOWRIBIDANUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD


                     ORAL 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 challenging the

judgment and award dated 28.08.2018 passed by the

MACT, Gowribidanur in MVC 72/2017.

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

stated are that on 11.03.2017, when the deceased

Prakasha was riding motorcycle bearing registration

No.KA-40-Y-4816 near Makalidurga cross, Tubagere Hobli,

NC: 2024:KHC:31395

Doddaballapura Taluk, at that time, a car bearing

registration No.KA-01-MH-6159 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. Upon service of notice, the respondents appeared

through counsel and 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.1 as PW-1 and got exhibited

NC: 2024:KHC:31395

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P55. On behalf of

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

exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R.. 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.8,15,000/- 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:

a) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was

aged about 19 years at the time of the accident and had a

monthly income of Rs.20,000/- by doing painting work.

However, the assessment of income of the deceased at

Rs.9,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.

NC: 2024:KHC:31395

b) Secondly, the Tribunal has erred in applying

multiplier based on the age of mother of the deceased.

The same is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex

Court in the case of SARLA VERMA.

c) Thirdly, 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 cases, where the deceased was self-

employed or received a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of

the established income towards 'future prospects' is

warranted when the deceased was below the age of 40

years. This principle shall be considered in the present

case.

d) 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'.

e) 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

NC: 2024:KHC:31395

2782], each of the claimants is entitled to compensation

of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection

and consortium'.

f) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the

deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side.

With the above contentions, the learned counsel

sought to allow the appeal.

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

Insurance Company has raised the following counter-

contentions:

a) Firstly, although the claimants claim that the

deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, they have

failed to substantiate their claim with supporting

documents. Consequently, the Tribunal has correctly

assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

NC: 2024:KHC:31395

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 light 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

at 8% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher

side.

With the above contentions, the learned counsel

sought to dismiss the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

NC: 2024:KHC:31395

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

traffic accident occurred on 11.03.2017 due to rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

10. The claimants claim that deceased was earning

Rs.20,000/- per month, but failed to produce supporting

documents to substantiate their claim. In the absence of

proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed.

According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State

Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year

2017, the notional income of the deceased shall be taken

at Rs.11,000/- 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 Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court

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

comes to Rs.15,400/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor,

it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the

deceased towards personal expenses and remaining

amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family.

As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of

NC: 2024:KHC:31395

SARLA VERMA, multiplier has to be applied based on the

age of the deceased. Consequently, the deceased was

aged about 19 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.16,63,200/-

(Rs.15,400*12*18*50%) on account of 'loss of

dependency' as against Rs.756,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal towards 'loss of estate'.

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),

claimant Nos.1 and 2, parents of the deceased are entitled

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

'loss of filial consortium'.

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31395

13. The compensation of Rs.9,242/- awarded by the

Tribunal under the head of 'medical expenses' is based on

the medical bills produced by the claimants and is deemed

just and reasonable.

14. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

compensation:

           Compensation under              Amount in
             different Heads                 (Rs.)

        Loss of dependency                   16,63,200

        Funeral expenses                        15,000

        Loss of estate                          15,000

        Loss of filial consortium               80,000

        Medical expenses                         9,242

                         Total              17,82,442

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