Karnataka High Court
Swetha vs Harish M R on 9 September, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36611
MFA No. 1200 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1200 OF 2020 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SWETHA
W/O LATE DILIP KUMAR B.T.
AGED N ABOUT 31 YEARS
2. BABY KRUTHI
D/O LATE DILIP KUMAR B.T.
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS
MINOR, REP BY HER NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.10, 2ND MAIN
5TH CROSS, NEAR G.SUKURTHA AGENCY
VIDYANAGAR, NAGASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 073.
3. G.P.THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH
R/AT GUNNAGER
Digitally signed by GUNNAGERE POST, KOTHAGERA HOBLI
HEMALATHA A TUMKUR-572 130
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HARISH M R
S/O LATE RANGANATH
MAJOR.MATHRU KRUPA, 4TH CROSS
NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE
JAYANAGAR WEST, TUMKUR-572 106.
2. THE LEGAR MANAGER
ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INS. CO LTD
NO.30, JNR CITY CENTER
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36611
MFA No. 1200 of 2020
RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD
SAMPANGIRAM NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.P.B. PAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.06.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.2828/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND XXXIII ACMM,
MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-5), 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 15.06.2019 passed by the
MACT, Bengaluru in MVC 2828/2018.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 14.04.2018, when the deceased Dilip
NC: 2024:KHC:36611
Kumar.B.T. was proceeding on motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-02-HJ-2541 on left side of Magadi
Road, near Ullal fly over Bridge, NICE road,
Yeshwanthapura, at that time, a car bearing registration
No.KA-06-N-9089 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
NC: 2024:KHC:36611
the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and
award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that
the claimants are entitled to a compensation of
Rs.36,06,000/- 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 has raised the
following contentions:
a) Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was
aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and had a
monthly income of Rs.24,249/- by working as BMTC driver
and produced salary certificate at Ex.P-8 and Form-16 at
Ex.P-9. However, the assessment of monthly income of
the deceased at Rs.18,000/- by the Tribunal is unjustified
and erroneous.
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
NC: 2024:KHC:36611
SC 5157], in cases, where the deceased was having a
permanent job, an addition of 50% of the income towards
'future prospects' is warranted when the deceased was
below the age of 40 years. The said principle has been
rightly applied by the Tribunal.
c) 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, the Tribunal considering Ex.P-8, salary
certificate of the deceased has rightly taken the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- while computing
'loss of dependency'.
NC: 2024:KHC:36611
b) 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.
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.
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 Dilip Kumar.B.T. died in the
road traffic accident occurred on 14.04.2018 due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
NC: 2024:KHC:36611
10. The claimants claim that deceased was working as a
BMTC driver and drawing salary of Rs.24,249/- per month
and produced salary certificate at Ex.P-8. Out of the said
salary, only Rs.200/- has to be deducted towards
professional tax and the income comes to Rs.24,049/-.
Thus, the income the deceased can be taken at
Rs.24,000/-. To the income, 50% has to be rightly 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.36,000/-. Since there are 3 dependents, it is
appropriate to deduct 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 35 years at the time of the accident and
multiplier applicable to his age group is '16'. Thus, the
claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.46,08,000/-
(Rs.36,000*12*16*2/3) on account of 'loss of
dependency'.
NC: 2024:KHC:36611
11. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
other heads is just and reasonable.
12. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 46,08,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal consortium 40,000
Loss of Filial consortium 80,000
Total 47,58,000
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:36611
c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.47,58,000/- as against Rs.36,06,000/- 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% p.a.
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 a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
f) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount
shall be made in accordance with the terms of the
award of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
DM
