Karnataka High Court

Sri Narayana Singh vs By Its Manager on 7 August, 2024

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                                  -1-
                                                            NC: 2024:KHC:31396
                                                        MFA No. 1653 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. 1653 OF 2019 (MV)
                      BETWEEN:
                      1. SRI NARAYANA SINGH
                         AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
                         S/O RAMASINGH.

                      2.    SHANTHA BAI
                            AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
                            W/O NARAYANA SINGH

                      3.    SUNIL SINGH
                            AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
                            S/O NARAYANA SINGH
                            ALL ARE R/O NO.2016/6
                            RAMESHWARA TEMPLE SIDE
                            FORT BACK HOUSE, MAGADI
                            BANGALORE RURAL.
                                                                 ...APPELLANTS
                      (BY SRI. SOMASHEKARA K.M.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
HEMALATHA A
                      AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              1. BY ITS MANAGER
KARNATAKA
                         M/S ICICI LOMBARD GIC
                         NO.121,THE ESTATE BUILDING
                         9TH FLOOR,DICKSON ROAD
                         BANGALORE-01.

                      2.    SHANMUGAM
                            S/O SHIVARAJ
                            R/AT NO.6,"A" 8TH CROSS
                            BALAJINAGAR, JAYANAGAR
                            BANGALORE.
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS
                              -2-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC:31396
                                         MFA No. 1653 of 2019




(BY SRI.B C SHIVANNE GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNRPRESENTED)


     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 04.08.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.3663/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER
OF MACT, BENGALURU       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 04.08.2018 passed by the

MACT, Bengaluru in MVC 3663/2017.

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

stated are that on 16.04.2017 when the deceased Raja

Singh was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration

No.KA-06-Y-5947 on Honnagana Hatti Bus Stand,

Bangalore, at that time, an autorickshaw bearing

NC: 2024:KHC:31396

registration No.KA-05-AC-3819 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 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,

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

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

respondents, two witnesses were examined as RWs-1 and

NC: 2024:KHC:31396

2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.

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.11,72,400/- 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 assert that the deceased was

aged about 26 years at the time of the accident and had a

monthly income of Rs.18,000/- by working as a Business.

However, the assessment of income of the deceased at

Rs.8,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.

NC: 2024:KHC:31396

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 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 has been rightly considered by the

Tribunal.

c) Thirdly, 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 is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- under

the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'.

d) 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.

NC: 2024:KHC:31396

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.18,000/- per month, they have

failed to substantiate their claim with supporting

documents. Consequently, the Tribunal has correctly

assessed the income of the deceased notionally.

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.

With the above contentions, the learned counsel

sought to dismiss the appeal.

NC: 2024:KHC:31396

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

9. It is not in dispute that Raja Singh died in the road

traffic accident occurred on 16.04.2017 due to rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

10. The claimants claim that deceased was earning

Rs.18,000/- 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

NC: 2024:KHC:31396

deceased towards personal expenses and remaining

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

The deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of the

accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '17'.

Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of

Rs.15,70,800/- (Rs.15,400*12*17*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),

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'.

NC: 2024:KHC:31396

13. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

compensation:

           Compensation under            Amount in
             different Heads               (Rs.)

        Loss of dependency                 15,70,800

        Funeral expenses                      15,000

        Loss of estate                        15,000

        Loss of Filial consortium             80,000

                         Total            16,80,800

14. 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.16,80,800/- as against Rs.11,72,400/- awarded by

the Tribunal.

d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from

the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of