Karnataka High Court
Smt.Savitha vs New India Ins Co Ltd on 5 January, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:693
MFA No. 3701 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3701 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAVITHA,
W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA,
AGED 28 YEARS,
2. NETHRA,
D/O LATE RAMACHANDRA,
AGED 10 YEARS,
3. KEERTHANA,
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA,
AGED 8 YEARS,
4. VARALAKSHMI @ PRAKRUTHI,
Digitally signed
by CHAITHRA P D/O LATE RAMACHANDRA,
Location: HIGH AGED 5 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
5. SMT. GOWRAMMA,
W/O LATE RAMEGOWDA,
AGED 63 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT: HUNASEMARADADODDI,
KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DIST - 562 117.
(SINCE APPELLANTS NO.2, 3 AND 4 ARE
MINORS, THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR
MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
THE 1ST APPELLANT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:693
MFA No. 3701 of 2021
AND:
1. NEW INDIA INS. CO. LTD.,
NO.09, 2ND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
BANGALORE -560 011,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
2. SRI. KESHAVAL IYENGAR,
S/O SHARMA IYENGAR,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/AT SINGARAJAPURA VILLAGE,
CHANNAPATTANA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH VIDE
ORDER DATED 18.07.2022)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO.6784/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND CHIEF JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU AND TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the
judgment and award dated 28.01.2021 passed by the Member
Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Chief judge, Court
of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal') in MVC
No.6784/2018. This appeal is founded on the premise of
NC: 2024:KHC:693
inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellants seek
enhancement of compensation.
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per
their status before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under;
That on 02.11.2018 at about 08.15 p.m.,
Sri.Ramachandra was walking as a pedestrian on the extreme
side of Kanakapura-Sangam Road at Aralalu village,
Kanakapura taluk, Ramanagara district. At that time, the
driver of canter goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-03-C-
2547 came from Sangam side towards Kanakapura, at high
speed, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger
human life and dashed against Ramachandra. As a result of
the impact, Ramachandra sustained severe injuries all over the
body and succumbed to fatal injuries on spot. Thereafter, the
post mortem was conducted in Government Hospital,
Kanakapura and the claimants performed the last rites by
incurring huge expenses.
3.1 The claimants are the legal representatives of
deceased Ramachandra being wife, three minor children and
NC: 2024:KHC:693
mother, aged 60 years. Though the claimants have stated that
the deceased Ramachandra was working and earning
Rs.30,000/- per month by doing agricultural and sericulture
works, milk and vegetable vending and maintaining the family.
The claimants were wholly dependant upon the earnings of the
deceased Ramachandra. On account of the untimely death of
the deceased, the claimants have been put to untold hardship
and misery.
3.2 It is the case of the claimants that a case has been
registered against the driver of goods vehicle bearing No.KA-
03-C-2547 and respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent
No.2 is the insurer of the same and hence, claimants filed a
claim petition seeking compensation.
3.3 On service of notice, respondent No.1 remained
absent and he was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2-
Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed
objections statement, wherein it had admitted the issuance of
policy in respect of the canter goods vehicle bearing No.KA-03-
C-2547 and it being valid from 08.02.2018 to 07.02.2019 and
being in force as on the date of accident. However, it is stated
NC: 2024:KHC:693
that its liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the
policy. Further, it is stated that it denies the occurrence of the
accident, involvement of the goods vehicle as it is not within its
knowledge and as the insured has not intimated the same. It is
stated that the insured has not submitted the required
documents and has violated the conditions of the policy. It is
stated that the insured vehicle was not having permit and
fitness certificate and the driver was not having valid and
effective driving licence and the owner of the canter vehicle has
knowingly allowed his vehicle to be driven by a person who was
not having driving licence and has violated the Motor Vehicles
Rules and hence, the contract between the insured and insurer
has become void and policy is not enforceable. The age,
avocation and income of the deceased and dependency of the
claimants on the income of the deceased are not admitted as
the same are not within the knowledge of respondent No.2. It
is stated that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive
and exorbitant. It is further pleaded that the accident has
occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased who
crossed the road where there was no zebra crossing or
pedestrian crossing. There is no negligence on the part of the
NC: 2024:KHC:693
driver of insured canter goods vehicle and accordingly,
respondent No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
3.4 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed
relevant issues for consideration.
3.5 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish
the case, claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and another
witness as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P15.
On the other hand, respondent No.2-Insurance Company
examined driver of the canter goods vehicle as RW-1.
3.6 On the basis of material evidence both oral and
documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned
counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.26,49,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum to the
claimants.
3.7 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation
awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court
challenging the impugned judgment and award.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
claimants is that the tribunal while adjudicating the claim
NC: 2024:KHC:693
petition has not taken into consideration the facts of the case
on a proper perspective. He further contends that the
deceased was doing agriculture activities and holding sufficient
lands, which are established at Ex.P14, the RTC's produced. He
contends that just because the fact that the RTC's are standing
in the name of the father of the deceased, who is also no more,
the same could not be a fact to disregard the probable income
of the deceased. The tribunal has assessed the income at
Rs.12,000/- per month, which is on the lower side.
Accordingly, he seeks enhancement of compensation and to
allow the appeal preferred by the claimants.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1-
Insurance Company submits that the tribunal is right in
awarding just and reasonable compensation, which does not
call for interference. Therefore, on these grounds, he seeks to
dismiss the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for claimants and
learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company, the
claimants are the legal representatives of deceased
Ramachandra being wife, three minor children and mother,
NC: 2024:KHC:693
aged 60 years. Though the claimants have contended that the
deceased Ramachandra was working and earning Rs.30,000/-
per month by doing agriculture, no documentary proof is
produced before the tribunal to show the income. The income
of the deceased assessed by the tribunal is Rs.12,000/- per
month, whereas the notional income chart of the Legal Services
Authority prescribes the income of Rs.12,500/- for the accident
of the year 2018. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.12,500/-.
The age of the deceased was 32 years. The tribunal has rightly
applied the multiplier at '16', which does not call for
interference.
7. The tribunal has rightly awarded 40% in addition to
the income as future prospects and deducted 1/4th of the
income towards personal expenses of the deceased, which also
does not call for interference. Hence, the income shall be taken
as Rs.13,125/- per month (Rs.12,500/- + 40% - 1/4th). Hence,
loss of dependency would be Rs.25,20,000/- (Rs.13,125/- x
12 x 16) as against Rs.24,19,200/- awarded by the tribunal.
8. Towards loss of consortium, loss of parental
consortium and loss of filial consortium, the tribunal has
NC: 2024:KHC:693
awarded totally Rs.2,00,000/-. Towards funeral expenses and
loss of estate, tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- each, in all
Rs.30,000/-, the same does not call for interference. However,
in addition to the same, the tribunal has not awarded 10%
escalation towards block period on the loss of consortium and
10% on the loss of conventional heads in accordance to the
judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680.
Therefore, the same would be computed as Rs.2,20,000/-
(Rs.2,00,000/- + 10%) and Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- +
10%).
9. In view of the above, the claimants would be
entitled to a total compensation of Rs.27,73,000/- as against
Rs.26,49,500/- as mentioned in the table below:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency 25,20,000-00
Loss of consortium, loss of 2,20,000-00
parental consortium and loss
of filial consortium
Loss of estate and funeral 33,000-00
expenses
TOTAL 27,73,000-00
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:693
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
ii) The judgment and award dated 28.01.2021 passed by
the Member, Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in
MVC.No.6784/2018 is modified;
iii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of
Rs.27,73,000/- as against Rs.26,49,500/- with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization;
iv) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the
tribunal shall stand intact with regard to deposit;
v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of the copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CPN
CT: BHK
