The High Court modified the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award by recalculating compensation based on the deceased's notional income and future prospects, resulting in a higher total award over the original amount.
The appeal was allowed in part; total compensation enhanced to Rs. 18,15,052; interest on enhanced compensation fixed at 6% p.a.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.1067 OF 2021(MV)
BETWEEN:
ALL ARE R/A THIGALARAPALYA BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.RAGHU R., ADV.)
AND:
2
S/O CHIKKAKEMPAIAH R/A MINNAPURA NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RUAL DISTRICT 562123.
2 . THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR, S M TOWERS1TH MAIN 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BENGALURU 560011.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.LAKSHMINARYAN C., ADV. FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 14.10.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.3083/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-18, 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:
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 10.01.2020 passed
3
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.3083/2019.
briefly stated are that on 26.10.2018 at about 01.45 p.m., Huchegowda along with one Revanna were proceeding in a bike bearing Registration No.KA-04HQ-2289 from Kodipalya Village towards Tumkuru at NH-4 service road, near Kodipalya Lake Gate slowly on the left side of the road, at that time, the driver of the Canter bearing Registration No.KA-01-AE-6778 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endangering to human life, dashed against the bike. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased-Huchegowda sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
4
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section
166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.
Nos.1 and 2 have 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. 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, they sought for dismissal of the petition.
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 another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited
5
documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. On behalf of respondents, neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 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.16,18,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 46 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing
6
bar bending work. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.8,500/-. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.
the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- 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, it is admitted fact that the deceased
was aged 46 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has error in considering the age of the deceased as 36 years. To that effect, the Tribunal instead of considering 25% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, has considered
7
40% and the same is contrary to the material available on record.
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 8% interest which is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8
9. It is not in dispute that deceased -
Huchegowda 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.15,000/- 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.
As per the Aadhar Card, the date of birth of the deceased is 01.06.1972. The accident occurred is 26.10.2018. Therefore, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 46 years.
9
Hence, to the aforesaid income, 25% 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 CO. LTD. - v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157] . Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.15,625/-. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.10,417/-. The deceased was aged about 46 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘13’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.16,25,052/- (Rs.10,4171213) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads are just and reasonable.
10
following compensation:
| Compensation under different Heads |
Amount in (Rs.) |
|---|---|
| Loss of dependency | 16,25,052 |
| Funeral expenses | 15,000 |
| Loss of estate | 15,000 |
| Loss of consortium | 1,60,000 |
| Total | 18,15,052 |
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.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 8% p.a. (the enhanced compensation shall carry interest
11
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/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the high court should modify the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal based on the deceased's notional income and multiplier calculations.
Whether the interest rate on the compensation amount should be adjusted in accordance with the court's previous division bench judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERSReferred¶53
MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS vs. VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020)
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD - v PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERSReferred¶58
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SIDDAMMA W/O LATE HUCHEGOWDA
MASTER ARUN KUMAR S/O LATE HUCHEGOWDA
KUM SHILPA D/O LATE HUCHEGOWDA
HANUMAIAH S/O BAJJAIAH
KESHAVA MURTHY MAJOR
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
