Karnataka High Court

Smt Lakkamma vs Sri Hemanth Kumar on 3 September, 2024

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                                  -1-
                                                              NC: 2024:KHC:35929
                                                            MFA No. 8378 of 2018




                           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. 8378 OF 2018 (MV)
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    SMT LAKKAMMA
                            W/O LATE NARASISMHAIAH
                            AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

                      2.    SRI.D.N.SHIVARAM
                            S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
                            AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

                      3.    SRI.GAJENDRA
                            S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
                            AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
                            ALL ARE R/AT DASARAKALLAHALLY
                            KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK.
                                                                   ...APPELLANTS
                      (BY SRI. NAIK N R., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by   AND:
HEMALATHA A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              1.    SRI HEMANTH KUMAR
KARNATAKA
                            S/O SRI CHALUVEGOWDA
                            MAJOR
                            R/AT HEMAVATHY NAGAR
                            HASSAN-577201.

                      2.    THE UNITED INDIA
                            INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
                            BRANCH OFFICE
                            RAGHAVENDRA COLONY
                            B.H.ROAD, TIPTUR-572701.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
                                    -2-
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC:35929
                                                 MFA No. 8378 of 2018




(BY SRI.S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED:03.09.2024)

    THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.04.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.1255/2014 ON THE FILE OF        THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT,
GUBBI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION     AND    SEEKING   ENHANCEMENT     OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

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 being aggrieved by

the judgment and award dated 05.04.2017 passed by the

Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Gubbi

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC

No.1255/2014.

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

stated are that on 23.05.2014 when the deceased

Narasimhaiah was standing on the left side of NH 206 near

NC: 2024:KHC:35929

Hosapalya gate, by stopping his lorry bearing registration

No.KA-06/2298, at that time, a tractor trailer bearing

registration No.KA-10/M-611 and KA-06/T-8026 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 at the spot.

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 respondent Nos.1 and

2 appeared through counsel and filed separate 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.P10. On behalf of

NC: 2024:KHC:35929

respondents, neither any witness was examined nor got

exhibited documents. 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.12,89,800/- along with interest at

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 raised the

following contentions:

i) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was

approximately aged about 38 years at the time of the

accident and had a monthly income of Rs.20,000/- as an

agriculturist. However, the assessment of income of the

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

erroneous.

NC: 2024:KHC:35929

ii) 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], the claimants are entitled to addition of future

prospects at 40%.

iii) 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'.

iv) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the

deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side. Hence, he

sought to allow the appeal.

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

Insurance Company submits as follows:

NC: 2024:KHC:35929

i) Firstly, although the claimants claim that the

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

to substantiate their claim with supporting documents.

Consequently, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the

income of the deceased notionally.

ii) Secondly, the deceased was aged about 45 years.

Hence, addition of 30% towards future prospects instead

of 25% is on the higher side.

iii) 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.

iv) 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. Hence, he sought to dismiss the appeal.

NC: 2024:KHC:35929

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

9. It is not in dispute that Narasimhaiah died in the

road traffic accident occurred on 23.05.2014 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

2014, the notional income of the deceased shall be taken

at Rs.8,500/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 25% 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.10,625/-. Since there are 3 dependents, it is

appropriate to deduct 1/3 of the income of the deceased

towards personal expenses and remaining amount, i.e.,

NC: 2024:KHC:35929

Rs.7,083/- has to be taken as his contribution to the

family. The deceased was aged about 45 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.11,89,944/- (Rs.7,083*12*14) 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'. Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled

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

spousal consortium'.

12. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme

Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE'

(supra), claimant Nos.2 and 3, children of the deceased

are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under

the head of 'loss of parental consortium'.

13. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

compensation:

NC: 2024:KHC:35929

Compensation under Amount in different Heads (Rs.)

Loss of dependency 1189,944

Funeral expenses 15,000

Loss of estate 15,000

Loss of spousal consortium 40,000

Loss of Parental consortium 80,000

Total 13,39,944

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