Karnataka High Court
Smt. Anitha vs M/S New India Assurance Company Ltd on 8 July, 2022
Author: H. T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H. T. Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.1716 OF 2020(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ANITHA
W/O SUNDAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
2. MASTER ROHAN KUMAR K S
@ ROHAN
S/O SUNDAR
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
MINOR REP BY HIS NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER THE
IST APPELLANT
BOTH ARE R/A KONDRAHALLI
NANDAGUDI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN-562122
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T., ADV.)
2
AND:
1. M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
BY ITS MANAGER
MOTOR CLAIMS HUB
NO.9/2, 2ND FLOOR
MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS
M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
2. MR PATHAN AYUB KHAN
S/O P HUSSAIN KHAN
R/A 19/143, KOTTAPALLI
RAYACHOTY, YSR KADAPA
ANDHRA PRADESH PIN-516269
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.M. VENKATESH, ADV. FOR R1:
NOTICE TOT R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 08.07.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
01.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 7094/2018 ON THE FILE
OF THE XV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIII
ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
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 01.08.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.7094/2018.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 15.10.2018 at about 11.00 P.M., the deceased-Sundar was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-53/EH-6647 slowly and cautiously proceeding near one Petrol Bunk at Satyavara, Nandagudi Hobli, Bengaluru Rural District, at that time, the driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-04/TX-2786 without giving any signal or indication or no parking lights suddenly stopped his vehicle on middle of the road. As a result, the deceased unable to control his vehicle and lost his 4 control and dashed to the rear side of the lorry. 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. On service of summons, the respondent No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
5
The respondent No.2 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was placed ex-parte.
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 No.1 as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. On behalf of respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R13. 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 are entitled to a compensation of Rs.12,33,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6 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:
Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working in a Private Company. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.9,000/-.
Secondly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:
7
Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, the same is not established by the claimants by producing documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally.
Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards 'future prospects'.
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.
Lastly, in view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the claimants are entitled for 6% interest but the Tribunal has granted 9% interest is on the 8 higher side. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that Sundar died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- 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 2018, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.12,500/- p.m. 9 The Tribunal considering the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157], has rightly considered 25% of the income of the deceased for 'future prospects'. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.15,625/-. Since there are two dependents, the Tribunal has rightly considered 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly income comes to Rs.10,417/-. The deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '14'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.17,50,056/- (Rs.10,417*12*14) on account of 'loss of dependency'.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads are just and reasonable. 10
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 17,50,056
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of Parental 40,000
consortium
Total 18,60,056
Total 90% 16,74,050
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.16,74,050/- as against Rs.12,33,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
In view of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'MS.JOYEETA BOSE', the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum.
11
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. (the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum) 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.
Sd/-
JUDGE HA/-