Karnataka High Court

Ahmad Pasha vs Manjunath on 3 September, 2024

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                                  -1-
                                                            NC: 2024:KHC:35754
                                                          MFA No. 151 of 2020




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

                                              BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                       MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 151 OF 2020 (MV)
                      BETWEEN:
                      1. AHMAD PASHA
                         S/O KHASIM SAB
                         AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

                      2.    MAMTAJ
                            W/O AHMAD PASHA
                            AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

                      3.    SUBEDAR
                            S/O AHMAD PASHA
                            AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

                      4.    SHABEENA
                            D/O AHMAD PASHA
                            AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
                            ALL ARE R/AT AVALAKI BEEDI
                            TAVAREKERE BENGALURU SOUTH
Digitally signed by         KARNATAKA-562 130
HEMALATHA A                                                      ...APPELLANTS
Location: HIGH        (BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA.,ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                      AND:
                      1. MANJUNATH
                         S/O DODDA MALAPPA
                         MAJOR, NO.565 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS
                         GOVINDARAJANAGAR VIJAYANAGAR
                         BENGALURU-560 040.

                      2.    THE LEGAL MANAGER
                            RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
                            RGIC NO.28 EAST WING
                              -2-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:35754
                                        MFA No. 151 of 2020




     5TH FLOOR CENTENARY BUILDING
     M G ROAD,BENGALURU-560 001
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.,LAKSHMINARAYAN C., ADVOCATE FOR R2:
NTOCE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 09.09.2024)
     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 24.01.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO. 192/2018       ON THE FILE OF THE
MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY(SCCH-4), 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 24.01.2019 passed by the

MACT, Bengaluru in MVC 192/2018.

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

stated are that on 04.11.2017, when the deceased

Showkath was pedestrian walking towards bus stop near

Honnaganahatti, Bangalore-Magadi Road, at that time, a

NC: 2024:KHC:35754

bus bearing registration No.KA-06-B-9293 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 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.1 as PW-1, and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On behalf of

NC: 2024:KHC:35754

respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any

document was produced. 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.12,40,000/- 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 19 years at the time of the accident and had a

monthly income of Rs.25,000/- by working as Mechanic.

However, the assessment of monthly income of the

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

erroneous.

NC: 2024:KHC:35754

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. The said principle shall be applied to the present

case.

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 is entitled to compensation

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

and consortium'.

NC: 2024:KHC:35754

e) 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.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, 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

NC: 2024:KHC:35754

deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is just and reasonable.

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 Mr.Showkath died in the road

traffic accident occurred on 04.11.2017 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

2017, the notional income of the deceased shall be taken

at Rs.11,000/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to

NC: 2024:KHC:35754

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.

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'.

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),

NC: 2024:KHC:35754

claimant No.1 and 2, parents of the deceased are entitled

for compensation of Rs.40,000/- 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                 16,63,200

        Funeral expenses                      15,000

        Loss of estate                        15,000

        Loss of Filial consortium             80,000

                         Total            17,73,200

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