Karnataka High Court

Smt Munirathna @ Munirathnamma vs Icici Lombard Motor Insurance ... on 1 October, 2024

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                                  -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC:40805
                                                        MFA No. 2852 of 2020




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                              BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2852 OF 2020 (MV)
                      BETWEEN:
                      1. SMT.MUNIRATHNA @ MUNIRATHNAMMA
                         W/O LATE SHIVARAJU
                         AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

                      2.    PALLAVI S
                            D/O LATE SHIVARAJU
                            AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

                      3.    GOPAL S
                            S/O LATE SHIVARAJU
                            AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS

                            APPELLANT 3 IS MINOR REP BY
                            THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
                            1ST APPELLANT
                            ALL ARE R/AT VADERAHALLI VILLAGE
                            HAROHALLI HOBLI
Digitally signed by         KANAKAPURA TALUK,
HEMALATHA A                 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117
Location: HIGH                                                  ...APPELLANTS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             (BY SRI.NITHYA V, ADVOCATE FOR
                       SRI.PRAKASH M H.,ADVOCATE)



                      AND:
                      1. ICICI LOMBARD GEN. INSURANCE CO-LIMITED
                         NO.121, THE ESTATE BUILDING
                         9TH FLOOR, DICKSON ROAD
                         BENGALURU -560001
                         REP BY ITS MANAGER
                              -2-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:40805
                                       MFA No. 2852 of 2020




2.   MEGHA TRAVELS
     REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR
     NO.837, 8TH MAIN ROAD
     14TH CROSS, 3RD PHASE
     J P NAGAR, BANGALORE-78
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 02.03.2023)
     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.09.2019 IN
MVC NO.2809/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MACT, ACMM, (SCCH-26),
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 03.09.2019 passed by the

MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.2809/2018.

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

stated are that on 09.05.2018 at about 08.30 a.m., the

deceased Shivaraju was proceeding in a motorcycle

NC: 2024:KHC:40805

bearing Registration No.KA-51-S-8964, while proceed and

reached at Thokathimmanadoddi Village cross, near

Ravugodlu Gate, Kanakapura Bengaluru Main Road,

Uttrahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South, the deceased was

stopped his vehicle on extreme side road, and waiting for

crossing the said road and very cautiously, at that time,

the driver of the Private Mini Bus bearing Registration

No.KA-52-5025 drove the same from Bengaluru towards

Kanakapura side, while overtaking a Tata Ace vehicle,

driven its extreme right side, without observing any traffic

rules and regulations, and in a rash and negligent manner

and endangering to human life, dashed against the

deceased motorcycle. 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.

NC: 2024:KHC:40805

4. Upon service of notice, the respondent No.2

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

denying the averments made in the claim petition. The

respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear

before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.

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 another witness as

PW-2, and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to

Ex.P21. On behalf of respondents, two witnesses were

examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. 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.14,10,000/- along with interest at

NC: 2024:KHC:40805

the rate of 9% 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 43 years at the time of the accident and had a

monthly income of Rs.25,000/- by doing agricultural work,

milk vending and sericulture work. However, the

assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- by

the Tribunal is unjustified and erroneous.

b) Secondly, 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:40805

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.25,000/- 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, 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.

c) 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 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher

side.

NC: 2024:KHC:40805

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.

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

traffic accident occurred on 09.05.2018 due to rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

10. The claimants claim that deceased was earning

Rs.25,000/- 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

2018, the notional income of the deceased shall be taken

at Rs.12,500/- p.m. The Tribunal has rightly added 25% of

the income of the deceased towards future prospects.

Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.15,625/-. The

NC: 2024:KHC:40805

Tribunal has also rightly deduced 1/3rd of the income of

the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining

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

The deceased was aged about 43 years at the time of the

accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '14'.

Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of

Rs.17,50,000/- (Rs.15,625*12*14*2/3) on account of

'loss of dependency'.

11. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under

other heads is just and reasonable and does not call for

any interference.

12. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

compensation:

          Compensation under           Amount in
            different Heads              (Rs.)

       Loss of dependency                17,50,000

       Funeral expenses                      15,000

       Loss of estate                        15,000

                                            NC: 2024:KHC:40805





        Loss of spousal consortium              40,000

        Loss of Parental consortium             80,000

                       Total                19,00,000

13. 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.19,00,000/- as against Rs.14,10,000/- awarded by

the Tribunal.

d) Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of 'MS.JOYEETA BOSE' (supra), the

enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per

annum.

e) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

compensation amount along with interest from the date of

filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within