Karnataka High Court
Sri J K Gidde Gowda vs Sri Ramalingam S on 19 February, 2020
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Ravi V Hosmani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
M.F.A. NO.1910/2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. J K GIDDE GOWDA
S/O LATE KAMBEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2. SMT. G SHARADAMMA
W/O J K GIDDE GOWDA
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NAGASAMUDRA ROAD
GAYATHRI EXTENSION
CHANNARAYAPTNA TOWN
HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.
... APPELLANTS
(By Sri. H.V. MANJUNATHA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. RAMALINGAM S
S/O SELLAPPAN, MAJOR
R/AT NO.1/80, CHINNA AYYAMPALAYAM
NALLIPALYAM POST
NAMMAKKAL-637003
TAMILNADU STATE.
2. MANAGER
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO LTD.,
2
CORPORATE CLAIMS DEPARTMENT
2ND FLOOR, SUBRAMANIAN
BUILDING NO.1, CLUB HOSE ROAD
ANNASALAI, CHENNAI-600002
TAMILNADU STATE.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. C.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADV., FOR R2
R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
---
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 2.6.2015 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1358/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CHANNARAYAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
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 02.06.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 21.06.2013, one G.Mahesh was proceeding on a motor cycle on N.H.48, B.M.Road, Sarapura Gate near poultry farm of Yoganna 3 H.Alkadahalli. At that time, a gas tanker lorry bearing registration No.TN-28 AJ-2242 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed, dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and was employed as Hydralic Drilling Operator and was earning `29,000/- p.m. The claimants who are the parents of the deceased claimed compensation to the tune of `50,00,000/- along with interest. On service of notice, the respondent No.1 did not appear and was proceeded exparte. Respondent No.2 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was also denied that the tanker lorry was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner. It was also pleaded that the driver of 4 the lorry had no valid driving licence and the instant case is a case of contributory negligence.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined himself as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. However, the respondent No.2 neither adduced any oral nor any documentary evidence. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on 21.06.2013 on account of rash and negligent driving of the tanker lorry 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 `12,90,000/- along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants while inviting the attention of this Court to Ex.P20 submitted that the 5 Tribunal grossly erred in computing the income of the deceased at `15,000/- p.m. whereas from Ex.P20 it is evident that the income of the deceased is `29,000/-. It was further pleaded that the compensation awarded is on the lower side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the claimants have failed to prove Ex.P20 and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not placed reliance on it. It is further submitted that since the claimants have not adduced any evidence to prove the income of the deceased, therefore, notional income of the deceased has to be taken as per the guidelines prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the claimants have not led any evidence to prove the income of the deceased. However, the deceased was employed as Hydralic 6 Drilling operator and was a skilled labourer. Therefore, the Tribunal in the fact situation of the case, has rightly assessed the income at `15,000/- p.m. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of 'NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS' AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to `21,000/-. The deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, half of the income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to `10,500/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 38 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 14 has to be adopted. Thus, the claimants are entitled to `17,64,000/- on account of loss of dependency. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANU RAM' 2018 ACJ 2782, each of the parent is entitled to a sum 7 of `40,000/- on account of loss of love and affection. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to `80,000/- on account of loss of love and affection. In addition, the claimants are held entitled to `30,000/- on account of loss of estate as well as funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of `18,74,000/-. 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 disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE RV