Karnataka High Court

Sri P Govindu vs Sri D Subramanyam on 10 September, 2024

                                                   -1-
                                                                NC: 2024:KHC:37048
                                                             MFA No. 2609 of 2024
                                                         C/W MFA No. 4298 of 2024




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

                                              BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2609 OF 2024(MV-D)
                                            C/W
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4298 OF 2024(MV-D)


                      IN MFA No. 2609 OF 2024:

                      BETWEEN:

                      UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                      REGIONAL OFFICE NO.18,
                      KRISHI BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR,
                      OPP. HUDSON CIRCLE,
                      NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
                      BANGALORE-560 001.
                      REP. BY IT ASSISTANT MANAGER
                                                                      ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. RAVISH C. BENNI ,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
                      AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                      1.    SRI P. GOVINDU,
                            S/O LATE CHINNAIAH,
                            AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

                      2.    SMT. P HEMALATHA,
                            W/O P. GOVINDU,
                            AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

                      3.    KUM. P THEJASWINI
                            D/O P. GOVINDU,
                            AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:37048
                                      MFA No. 2609 of 2024
                                  C/W MFA No. 4298 of 2024



     SINCE MINOR, REP. BY HER FATHER/
     NATURAL GUARDIAN P. GOVINDU

     ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.2-4,
     NAMPALLI HARIJANAWADA IRALA MANDAL,
     CHITTOR DISTRICT-517130,
     ANDHRA PRADESH.

4.   SRI. D. SUBRAMANYAM,
     S/O D. NAGARAJU,
     AGE MAJOR, R/O NO.6-91,
     S. T. COLONY, PALAMANER OLD PET,
     PALAMANER, ANDHRA PRADESH-517408.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KAILAS SHANKAR P S.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSE WITH,
V/O. DATED 24.04.2024)

     THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.02.2024         PASSED IN
MVC NO.630/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SCJ,
AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, BENGALURU, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.30,26,864/- WITH INTEREST AT
6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE
OF DEPOSIT.


IN MFA NO. 4298 OF 2024:

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI P. GOVINDU
     S/O LATE CHINNAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2.   SMT. P. HEMALATHA
     W/O P. GOVINDU,
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
3.   KUMARI P THEJASWINI,
     D/O P. GOVINDU,
     AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
                           -3-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC:37048
                                    MFA No. 2609 of 2024
                                C/W MFA No. 4298 of 2024



     SINCE MINOR REP BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN/
     FATHER APPELLANT NO.1

     ALL ARE RESIDENT OF NO.2-4,
     NAMPALLI, HARIJANAWADA IRALA MANDAL,
     CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517130,
     ANDHRA PRADESH.
                                      ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. KAILAS SHANKAR P. S.,ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.   SRI. D. SUBRAMANYAM,
     S/O. D. NAGARAJU, MAJOR,
     R/O NO.6-91, S. T. COLONY,
     PALAMANER OLD PET,
     PALAMANER CHITTOOR DISTRICT,
     ANDHRA PRADESH-517408.

2.   THE MANAGER,
     THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     REGIONAL OFFICE NO.18,
     KRISHI BHAVANA, 5TH FLOOR,
     OPP HUDSON CIRCLE,
     NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
     BANGALORE-560 001
                                     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAVISH C. BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH,
V/O. DATED 19.08.2024)

     THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.02.2024 PASSED IN
MVC NO.630/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL
SCJ, AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, BENGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
                                  -4-
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC:37048
                                            MFA No. 2609 of 2024
                                        C/W MFA No. 4298 of 2024



     THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA


                       ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.Ravish C Benni learned counsel for the

appellant as well as Sri.Kailas Shankar P.S. learned counsel for

respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. Challenge in MFA 2609/2024 is the order that is

rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, in

MVC No.630/2023 dated 16.02.2024. This appeal is preferred

by the insurer of the bus bearing registration No.KL-06-E-7788

projecting the grounds that the driver of the goods carrier

vehicle which is involved in the accident was also at fault and

the Tribunal failed to attribute contributory negligence on part

of the driver of the said vehicle. The second ground urged is in

respect of the compensation awarded. The version of the

appellant is that the sum awarded as compensation is high and

excessive.

3. The claimants also filed an appeal i.e., MFA

No.4298/2024 seeking enhancement of compensation.

NC: 2024:KHC:37048

4. Thus, both the appeals are taken up for discussion

regarding merits and disposal.

5. For the sake of convenience of discussion, the

parties to the proceedings would be herein after be referred to

as the 'claimants' and the 'insurance company'.

6. The version of the claimants as projected before the

Tribunal is that on 27.12.2022 at about 4.00 a.m., while the

deceased P.Venki Rao (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'

for brevity) was driving a goods carrier vehicle bearing

registration No.KA-08-A-1346 from Rayachoty towards

Madanapalle and when the vehicle reached near Star Pipe

Factory, one bus bearing registration No.KL-06-E-7788 came

at a high speed, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the

goods vehicle, due to which the deceased who was driving the

goods vehicle caught in his seat and suffered severe injuries.

He was shifted to Government hospital, Rayachoty and after

first aid, he was referred to Sankalpa hospital, Tirupathi. But he

succumbed to injuries on the same day at about 8:30 a.m.

NC: 2024:KHC:37048

7. The insurance company filed I.A.No.2/2024 seeking

the Court to permit production of additional evidence.

8. Arguing the matter, learned counsel Sri.Ravish C

Benni representing the insurance company contends that

through I.A.No.2/2024 the insurance company intends to bring

to the notice of this Court the contents of rough sketch which

depicts the manner in which the accident occurred. Learned

counsel states that the said rough sketch clearly discloses that

the driver of the bus was not at fault and indeed the deceased

was at fault. Vehemently opposing the submission thus made,

learned counsel Sri.Kailas Shankar.P.S. representing the

claimants submits that two claim petitions were filed, one by

the claimants herein and another by the injured seeking

compensation and in the other matter i.e., in MVC

No.2171/2023, accepting the liability, the insurance company

paid compensation. Learned counsel states that both the claim

petitions were disposed of by the Tribunal through a common

order and when the insurance company has satisfied one part

of the common order, it cannot raise different pleas and cannot

take distinct grounds disputing its liability with regard to other

part of the order.

NC: 2024:KHC:37048

9. Discussing at length the merits of the matter, the

Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus which is

involved in the accident. It is not in dispute that the police after

investigation laid charge sheet against the driver of the bus.

For the reasons best known, the owner of the bus did not

contest the claim petitions. Also the insurance company did not

led any evidence in support of its plea that negligence lies on

part of the deceased, who was driving the goods carriage

vehicle when the accident occurred. That apart, what prevented

the insurance company to file the rough sketch which is

produced before this court through IA No.2/2024 is not stated.

Law is well settled that additional evidence cannot be accepted

by the appellate Court without their being cogent and

convincing reasons which satisfy the Court that the appellant

could not produce such additional evidence despite of due

diligence. However, in the case on hand, no such grounds are

projected by the insurance company. Therefore, this Court is of

the view that the application filed for receiving additional

evidence cannot be entertained. That apart, rough sketch alone

cannot form basis for deciding the aspect of negligence.

NC: 2024:KHC:37048

10. In the light of absence of any substantive proof with

regard to negligence on part of the deceased in driving the

goods carriage vehicle, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the

liability against the Insurance Company. Therefore, the

observations made in that regard needs no interference.

11. Coming to the amount that is awarded as

compensation, the Tribunal through the impugned order

awarded a sum of Rs.30,26,864/- as compensation. It is not in

dispute that the deceased died as bachelor. Therefore, as per

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla

Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another

reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, 50% of the actual earnings are

required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses

which the deceased would have incurred for himself had he

been alive. However, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the

earnings.

12. The submission that is made by Sri.Kailas

Shankar.P.S learned counsel for the claimants is that the

deceased as a driver was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. But

the Tribunal took the national income as Rs.14,469/- per

NC: 2024:KHC:37048

month, which is improper. On the other hand, Sri. Ravish C

Benni submits that the claimants have not produced any proof

with regard to the earnings of the deceased. Sri.Kailas

Shankar.P.S also contended that accident occurred in the year

2022 and for the relevant period the Karnataka State Legal

Services Authority is taking the national income as Rs.15, 500/-

per month for settling the claims and atleast the said figure

should be considered. Sri .Ravish C Benni did not raise any

objection to consider the notional income of the deceased as

Rs.15,500/- per month. Also the request made is justifiable.

13. Thus taking the notional income of the deceased as

Rs.15,500/- per month, adding 40% of the earnings towards

future prospects, the age of the deceased being 19 years by

the date of accident, deducting 50% towards personal and

living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for

himself had he been alive, applying the appropriate multiplier

'18', the amount which the claimants are entitled to under the

head loss of dependency is as under:

Amount Description In Rest.

           Notional monthly income                 15,500-00
           Annual Income (15,500X12)             1,86,000-00
                                          - 10 -
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:37048





             Add 40% towards future prospects
                                                               2,60,400-00
             (1, 86,000+40%)
             Deduct 50% towards personal and
                                                               1,30,200-00
             living expenses
             Loss of dependency, on applying the
                                                              23,43,600-00
             appropriate multiplier '18'

14. Thus, claimants are entitled to Rs.23,43,600/-

under the head loss of dependency. Also the claimants are

entitled to Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 being

the parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards

loss of filial consortium. Thus compensation which the

claimants are entitled to is as under:

            Sl                                           Amount
                              Compensation
            No.                                           in Rs.
             1        Loss of dependency               23,43,600-00
             2        Funeral expenses                   16,500-00
             3        Loss of estate                     16,500-00

             4        Loss of filial consortium           44,000-00

                      Total                           24,20,600-00

15. The Tribunal through the impugned order as earlier

stated awarded a sum of Rs.30,26,864/- as compensation.

However, the claimants are entitled to a sum Rs.24,20,600/-

only. Thus, both the appeals are disposed of with the following:

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:37048

ORDER

(i) MFA No.2609/2024 is allowed in part.

(ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, through orders in MVC No.630/2023 dated 16.02.2024 is reduced from Rs.30,26,864/- to Rs.24,20,600/-.