Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Devamma on 19 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1313, 2020 (4) AKR 240
Bench: Alok Aradhe, M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
M.F.A. NO.3235/2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
# 18, 5TH & 6TH FLOORS,
KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT.DEVAMMA
W/O SRI VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
2. SRI.VENKATESHAPPA
S/O SRI LATE NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT
HUNAKUNDA VILLAGE & POST,
2
BANGARAPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 104.
3. SRI SHIVAKUMAR
S/O SRI NYANCHARI,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT 82, 5TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
BALAJI NAGAR, KRISHNAMURTHY LAYOUT,
DRC POST, BENGALURU - 560 029.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.GOPALAKRISHNA, ADV. FOR R1 & R2,
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED
21.06.2018)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
12.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.5461/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, XIX
ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.18,46,000/- WITH INTEREST @
6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT
OF THE AMOUNT IN THE TRIBUNAL.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, M.NAGAPRASANNA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal, though listed for admission, is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3
2. This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) by the Insurance Company challenging the compensation determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) in its judgment and award dated 12.01.2016 in MVC.No.5461/2014.
3. Parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that, on 01.08.2014, at about 8.00 p.m. when the deceased Nagaraj was standing in front of Gramapanchayath Office gate of Hunakunda Village, Bangarapet Taluk, and conversing with his friends, at that time, one Scorpio Car bearing registration No.KA-01-MA-7728 came towards Hanukunda Village side, driven by its driver in a high 4 speed and in a rash and negligent manner and when the said vehicle was about to take right turn, the driver lost the control over the vehicle and driven on the wrong side of the mud path of the road near the Gramapanchayath Office and hit the deceased. Due to which, the deceased fell down, sustained injuries and died on the way to SNR Hospital, Kolar.
5. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of accident and was working as a bar bender and building centering worker working under different employers and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the parents lost their son and finding difficult to eke their livelihood. They contend that they have spent Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral obsequies. Hence, they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-. 5
6. On receipt of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company filed written statement contending that the claimants are neither residents of Bangalore nor working in Bangalore. It was also contended that it was a false case only to get compensation and that the driver of the offending Scorpio Car did not possess any valid driving license and the endorsement to drive the same. It further contended that the owner of the offending vehicle had not complied with the statutory demand.
7. 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 herself as PW-1 and got exhibited 9 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 to prove the case. On the other side, the Insurance Company examined one witness by 6 name Kusuma K., as RW.1 and did not produce any documents on its behalf. The claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment, interalia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending Car, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and died while going to the hospital. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.18,46,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the Insurance Company is in appeal.
8. Learned counsel for Insurance Company contends that though the claimants neither produced any documents nor examined any witness with regard to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- p.m. which is exorbitant. However, the Tribunal has added 50% 7 as future prospects to the income of the deceased which is contrary to law.
9. Learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- p.m. against the averment made in the claim petition as the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m.
10. We have considered the submissions made by Sri Janardhan, learned counsel for appellant - Insurance Company and Sri N. Gopala Krishna, learned counsel for the claimants and have perused the record.
11. Though the deceased was working as bar bender and building centering worker under different employers and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., however, no evidence has been adduced with regard to his income. Therefore, the chart prepared by the Karnataka State 8 Legal Services Authority has to be taken into account. Since, the accident has taken place in the year 2014, the notional income of the deceased can be determined as per the aforesaid chart at Rs.9,000/- p.m. To the said amount, 40% 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 'NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS' AIR 2017 SC 5157. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.12,600/- (Rs.9,000/- + Rs.3,600/-). Out of which, we deem it appropriate to deduct 50% towards personal expenses as he was a bachelor and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.6,300/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased who was aged 27 years at the time of accident, multiplier of '17' has to be adopted. The claimants are entitled to Rs.12,85,200/- 9 (Rs.6,300/- x 12 x 17) on account of loss of dependency.
12. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANU RAM' 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 Rs.80,000/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
13. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.13,95,200/-. 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.
10
14. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with the modification of the award of the claims Tribunal to the aforesaid extent.
The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal for payment to the claimants.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE nvj