Karnataka High Court
Sumangala And Ors vs Ramangouda & Anr on 17 February, 2020
Bench: G.Narendar, M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.202534/2019 (MVC)
BETWEEN:
1. SUMANGALA
W/O BASAVARAJ @
BASANAGOUDA, AGE:41 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
2. SHRUTI
D/O BASAVARAJ @ BASANAGOUDA
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
3. SIDDALINGAREDDY
S/O BASAVARAJ @ BASANAGOUDA,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
ALL ARE R/O JERBANDI
TQ: DEVADURGA DIST.:RAICHUR.
NOW AT PLOT NO.213,
H.NO.1-1945/42/1B/A/FF,
5TH MAIN ROAD,
GODUTAI COLONY, KALABURRAGI
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SIDRAMAREDDY VENKANNAPAREDDY, ADV.)
2
AND:
1. RAMANGOUDA
S/O HANAMANTHRAYA
LINGADALLI, AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS AND OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
R/O: AT POST MADIKESHWAR
TQ:MUDDEBHIAL
DIST. VIJAYAPUR - 585 116.
2. THE UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
2ND FLOOR CENTURY COMPLEX
OPP. SANGAM THEATER,
SUPER MARKET, KALABURAGI - 585 101
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED
20.01.2020)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC
NO.736/2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT AT KALABURAGI, ETC.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
NAGAPRASANNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for admission, the same is taken up for disposal, since it is in narrow compass.
3
2. 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 dated 23.09.2019 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalaburagi in MVC No.736/2018.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 22.4.2018, the deceased Basavaraj was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA.36/ED.2334 from Jerbandi to Devadurga and one Marlinga was the pillion rider of the motor cycle. After completion of their work, when they were proceeding towards Jerbandi, at about 2.30 p.m. near Devaragudda cross, a Trax Toofan vehicle bearing registration No.KA.35/M.7285 came from wrong direction at a very high speed being driven in rash and negligent manner in violation of traffic rules, dashed to the motor cycle of the 4 deceased, due to which the deceased Basavaraj fell on the ground and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
4. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged 48 years at the time of the accident, he was hale and healthy and was working as a driver under one Ambresh, son of Chennappa, and earning `.15,000/- p.m. and `.300/- per day as bhata. It is further contended that due to untimely death of the deceased, the family is put to starvation as he was the only bread winner of the family. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of `.88,00,000/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of death of the deceased. On service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their respective counsels and filed their respective statement of objections.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the 5 evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined two witnesses, namely, the wife of the deceased-claimant No.1 as P.W.1 and owner of the vehicle, where the deceased used to work, as P.W.2 and got marked documents namely Exs.P.1 to P.10. The respondents, however, neither adduced any oral evidence nor produced any documentary evidence. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Trax Toofan vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of `.12,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6. We have heard Sri Sidramreddy Venkanna Pareddy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants- 6 claimants and Sri Sudarshan M., learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in granting meager compensation of `.12,50,000/- taking the income of the deceased at `.8,500/- per month instead of `.15,000/- ignoring the evidence of P.W.2, namely the employer of the deceased, which has resulted in compensation awarded. It is also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider Ex.P.9 which is a document showing that the deceased was also an agriculturist and was earning from agricultural sources.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
7
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers.
10. The claimants contended that the deceased was working as a driver under P.W.2-Ambresh, owner of the car which the deceased was driving, and getting `.15,000/- p.m. and `.300/- per day as bhata. The owner of the car in his examination in chief though supports the said statement of the claimants, in the cross examination deposes that he has not produced any document to support the said claim of income of the deceased. Since there is no evidence placed before the tribunal with regard to the income of the deceased, the notional income has to be fixed as per the guidelines issued by the High Court Legal Services Committee. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2018, the notional income has to be taken at `.12,500/- p.m. To the aforesaid amount, 25% has to be added on account 8 of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. Thus, the monthly income comes to `.15,625/-. Out of which, we deem it appropriate to deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to `.10,417/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 48 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 13 has to be adopted. The claimants are entitled to `.16,25,052/- on account of loss of dependency. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANU RAM reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, the claimants are entitled to `.40,000/- each as loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Thus, the total amount of compensation under this head is assessed at `.1,20,000/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled to `.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and 9 funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of `.17,75,052/-. Needless to state that the aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-
CT:MJ