Karnataka High Court
Smt. Radhamma vs The Cheif Instructor Workshops (Iwmt) on 14 December, 2021
Author: H. T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H. T. Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.5008 OF 2019(MV)
C/W
MFA No.5009 OF 2019(MV)
IN MFA 5008/2019
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. ASHA
W/O LATE G NAGESH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
2 . SMT NARAYANAMMA
W/O M GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
3 . SRI M GOVINDAPPA
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
ALL ARE R/A
TAMAKA VILLAGE & POST
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADV.)
2
AND
THE CHIEF INSTRUCTOR
WORKSHOPS (IWMT)
MADRAS ENGINEERING
GROUP & CENTRE
HALASURU
BENGALURU-560008.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. S. SUMATHI, CGC.(ABSENT))
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:07.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.706/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA 5009/2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RADHAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
2. V SAHANA
D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
3. ANIVTH GOWDA
S/O LATE HARISH KUMAR
MINOR
3
REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER
2ND APPELLANT
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
TAMAKA VILLAGE & POST
KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADV.)
AND
THE CHIEF INSTRUCTOR
WORKSHOPS (IWMT)
MADRAS ENGINEERING
GROUP & CENTRE
HALASURU
BENGALURU-560008.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. S. SUMATHI, CGC.(ABSENT))
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:07.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.707/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
4
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) have been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.3.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar in MVC 706/2014 and 707/2014 respectively.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 22.7.2014 the deceased G.Nagesh and deceased Narayanaswamy were proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 07-S-1201 near Gangapura Village, Hosakote Taluk, at that time, Military Truck bearing registration No.08C-178734X was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came in opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of the 5 aforesaid accident, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Deceased Narayanaswamy succumbed to the injuries on the spot and deceased Nagesh succumbed to the injuries on 24.7.2014.
3. The claimants filed petitions under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.
4. On service of summons, the respondent appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the military truck. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petitions.
6
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 their case, examined claimant Nos.1 and 3 in MVC 706/2014 as PW-1 & 2 and claimant No.1 in MVC 707/2014 was examined as PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P25. On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and no documents were produced. 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 in MVC 706/2014 are entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,67,000/- and claimants in MVC 707/2014 are entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,28,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% 7 p.a. and directed the respondent to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed. IN MFA 5008/2019 (MVC 706/2014)
6. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased G.Nagesh was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month by running a hardware store in the name and style of 'Nanjundeshwara Hardware Stores'. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.6,000/-.
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], in case the deceased 8 was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards 'future prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The same may be considered.
Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'.
Fourthly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.
7. There is no representation for the respondent.
9
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that deceased Nagesh.G died on 24.7.2014 in the road traffic accident occurred on 22.7.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. But they have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2014, as per the Minimum Wage Act, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.8,500/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid 10 down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 'PRANAY SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.11,900/-. 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 25 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.17,13,600/- (Rs.11,900*12*18*2/3) on account of 'loss of dependency'.
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'. 11
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE' (supra), claimant Nos.2 and 3, parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head 'loss of filial consortium' .
The compensation of Rs.102,967/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'medical expenses' is just and reasonable Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 17,13,600
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of filial consortium 80,000
Medical expenses 1,02,967
Total 19,66,567
Rounded off 19,67,000
12
IN MFA 5009/2019 (MVC 707/2014)
10. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased Narayanaswamy was aged about 55 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month from agricultural work. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.6,000/-.
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], in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 10% of the established income towards 'future prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased was between the age group of 50-60 years. The same may be considered.13
Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'.
Fourthly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.
11. There is no representation for the respondent.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
13. It is not in dispute that deceased Narayanaswamy died in the road traffic accident 14 occurred on 22.7.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. But they have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2014, as per the Minimum Wage Act, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.8,500/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 10% 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.9,350/-. Since there are 2 dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses 15 and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '11'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,22,800/- (Rs.9,350*12*11*2/3) on account of 'loss of dependency'.
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'.
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE' (supra), claimant No.2 is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of love and affection'.
16
Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 822,800
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of love and 40,000
affection
Total 932,800
14. In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
The claimants in MVC 706/2014 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.19,67,000/- as against Rs.10,67,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The claimants in MVC 707/2014 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.9,32,800/- as against Rs.6,28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 17
The respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. 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 copy of this judgment.
In view of the order passed by this Court, the appellants/claimants in MFA 5009/2019 are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 741 days in filing the said appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE DM