The High Court allowed the appeal in part against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court modified the compensation to Rs. 26,21,253/-, enhancing the award based on guidelines for notional income, future prospects, and consortium damages.
Compensation enhanced to Rs. 26,21,253/-; respondent directed to deposit amount with 6% interest.
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 06TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.186 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:
ALL ARE R/AT: R. NALLAGUNTLAPALLI, CHELUR, BAAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. SINCE THE 2ND & 5TH APPELLANTS ARE
2
MINORS REPTD. BY THEIR MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT AS NATURAL GUARDIAN.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI JAGADISH G. KUMBAR, ADV. FOR SRI SREENIVASAIAH.A, ADV.)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, T.N.S.T.C., NO.12, RAMAKRISHNA ROAD, SALEM 7, TAMILNADU.
BRANCH OFFICE AT: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, T.N.S.T.C., MYSORE ROAD BUS STATION, (SATELLITE BUS STAND), BYTARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI BOPANNA, ADV.)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1900/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, COURT OF ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, M.A.C.T., BENGALURU (SCCH-13), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING, 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 31.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.1900/2017.
briefly stated are that on 22.03.2017 at about 06.00 P.M. the deceased Adinarayana was standing by the side of the road, in front of B.T.L college, BengaluruHosur NH-7 road, Bommasandra, Anekal, at that time, the driver of T.N.S.T.C Bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-2720 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, lost control over the bus and dashed violently against the deceased.
As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased
4
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.
5
prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On behalf of respondent, one witness was examined as RW-1 but no documents were exhibited. 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.14,82,053/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the respondent/Corporation 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 29 years at the time of the accident
6
and he was earning Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,200/- per day by working as Mason. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.9,000/-.
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 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 [2018 ACJ 2782] , each of the claimants are entitled for
7
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 enhancement of compensation.
Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.1,000/- to 1,200/- per day, 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’.
8
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. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
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.1,000/- to Rs.1,200/- per day as a mason. 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
9
Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2017, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.
To the aforesaid income, 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 ‘PRANAY SETHI’ (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.15,400/-. Since there are five dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and the monthly income comes to Rs.11,550/-. The deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘17’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.23,56,200/- (Rs.11,5501217) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.
In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘loss of
10
estate’ and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’.
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium', claimant Nos.2 and 5, children of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’ and claimant Nos.3 and 4, parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’ .
The compensation of Rs.35,053/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘Medical Expenses’ is just and reasonable.
11
following compensation:
| Compensation under different Heads |
Amount in (Rs.) |
|---|---|
| Loss of dependency | 23,56,200 |
| Funeral expenses | 15,000 |
| Loss of estate | 15,000 |
| Loss of spousal consortium |
40,000 |
| Loss of Parental consortium |
80,000 |
| Loss of Filial consortium | 80,000 |
| Medical Expenses | 35,053 |
| Total | 26,21,253 |
The respondent / Corporation is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with interest at 6%p.a. from the date of filing of the claim
12
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/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation based on the notional income and future prospects guidelines.
Whether the award for loss of consortium for the wife, children, and parents should be fixed at Rs. 40,000/- each.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads is just and reasonable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and OthersApplied¶44
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157] · Who else cites this
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu RamApplied¶48
MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
C. Kullayamma
Master Manu R.A.
J. Maleshappa
The Managing Director, T.N.S.T.C.
H. T. Narendra Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
