Karnataka High Court
Sharada vs K Vasanthi on 11 March, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
MFA NO. 304 OF 2018 (MV-DEATH)
BETWEEN:
1. SHARADA
WIFE OF RAJU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
2. RAJU
SON OF KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
SIDDANAHALLY, YELAHANKA POST
MADIHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 216
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GURUDEVA PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K. VASANTHI
WIFE OF KANDASAMY
MAJOR IN AGE
NO.29-A-10
BHATRAKALI STREET
S.P. PUNDHUR
NAMAKKAL - 637 001
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
14/A, PARAMATHY ROAD
2
NAMAKKAL
TAMIL NADU - 637 001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
3. K. VIJAY
SON OF LATE K.M.KRISHNAMURTHY
MAJOR IN AGE, NO.32, 2ND MAIN
1ST BLOCK EAST, BYRASANDRA
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011
4. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
NO.105-A/107-A, CEARS PLAZA
136, RESIDENCY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 025
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ASHOK N., PATIL, ADV. FOR R2;
SMT. H.R.RENUKA FOR R4;
R1 AND R3 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES AND MEMBER, M.A.C.T., (SCCH-15), BENGALURU,
PERUSE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.07.2017
PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.4198/2015 AND ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT WITH INTEREST AND COST
AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 03.07.2017 passed in M.V.C.No.4198/2015 by the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member MACT, Bengaluru, ('Tribunal' for short).
2. The brief facts leading to the top noted appeal are as under:-
The appellants are parents of one Punith. The case of the appellants are that on 31.07.2015 at about 5.30 p.m. the son of appellants was proceeding along with his friend in a Car bearing No.KA-05-NQ-5049. When the Car reached near Shettihalli on Bengaluru-Mysuru main road, at that juncture, the driver of the offending Lorry bearing No.TN-52-Y-6978 came in a rash and negligent manner and abruptly applied the brake. The further case of the appellants/claimants is that the driver of the Car had no reason to anticipate the sudden stop of lorry and as there was no signal, the driver of the Car collided against lorry from the hind side. In the said accident, son of claimants 4 succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was hardly aged 20 years and he was working as a clerk and getting a salary of Rs.12,000/- p.m. Hence, appellants/claimants filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
3. The respondent No.2 being insurer of offending lorry contested the proceedings and denied the entire averments made in the claim petition. A specific contention was taken by the respondent no.2 - insurance company that in fact the driver of the Car was solely negligent and responsible for the accident and hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The Tribunal based on rival contentions formulated the following issues:-
1. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the LRs of the deceased?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Sri.Punith was died in RTA arising out of accident alleged to have been taken place on 31.07.2015 at about 05.30 pm., near Shettyhalli Village, on Bengaluru - Mysuru road, due to the rash and negligence driving of 5 driver of the Lorry bearing registration No.TN-
52-Y-6978?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
4. What order or award?
5. The appellants/claimants in support of their contention examined the mother of the deceased as PW-1 and one independent witness as PW-2 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P.1 to P.12. The respondent No.2 did not choose to examine any witness but has produced two documents vide Exs.R.1 to R.2.
6. The Tribunal on examination of oral and documentary evidence answered issue No.2 in the Affirmative by holding that the son of the appellants died in a road traffic accident dated 31.07.2015 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry.
7. The Tribunal while determining the compensation held that the appellants have not placed any clinching evidence to indicate actual income of the deceased. In 6 absence of proof of income, the Tribunal proceeded to take notional income of deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month and has proceeded to award a sum of Rs.5,88,000/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal in all awarded a sum of Rs.7,03,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a.
8. The Tribunal has further erred in applying '14' as multiplier which is also contrary to the ratio applied by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that in the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal erred in notionally assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. Though this Court would not find fault with the finding of the Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased, however, this Court by relying on chart issued by the Legal Services Authority would assess the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. By 7 adding 40% towards future prospects, income of deceased is assessed at Rs.12,600/- and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/-. Hence, the compensation re- determined comes to Rs.13,60,800/- (6,300 x 12 x 18) towards loss of dependency.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants by relying on ratio laid down in Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram and others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, would submit that appellant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium and under other conventional heads, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded. In all, appellants/claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.14,70,800/- as against Rs.7,03,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants/claimants are entitled for enhanced 8 compensation of (Rs.14,70,800 - Rs.7,03,000) = Rs.7,67,800/-. The respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.7,67,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
Sd/-
JUDGE MH/-