Partly allowed

Meena v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2022MFA/7744/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the first appeal partially. The court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs. 9,73,000 to Rs. 12,47,200 based on notional income and Supreme Court guidelines regarding consortium and future prospects.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the Tribunal's award; Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 12,47,200 payable with interest; Interest for 167 days withheld.

Meena Vs the Managing Director — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MFA No.7744 OF 2019(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MEENA W/O LATE SHIVALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶9

MAMATHA J.S., D/O LATE SHIVALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT GURUVINAPURA VILLAGE SATHNOOR HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK-562 107.

¶11

...APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K., ADV.)

¶13

AND

¶14

1 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR VRL LOGISTIC LIMITED REGISTERED AND ADMINISTRATION OFFICE N.H.4, BENGALURU ROAD VARUR HOBLI 580020.

¶15

2 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

¶16

¶17

BY ITS MANAGER OPP. LIC OFFICE BEHIND KSRTC BUSTAND RAMANAGARA TOWN 562159.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.S.KRISHNA KISHORE. ADV. FOR R2)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07/12/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.143/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

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 and award dated 7.12.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanagara in MVC 143/2017.

¶24

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 23.1.2017, when the

¶25

¶26

deceased Shivalingegowda was proceeding on TVS XL mobbed bearing registration No.KA-05-JL-7194 from Ramanagara to Channapatna, at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-25-AA-7826 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶27

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section

¶28

166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

¶29

On service of summons, the respondents

¶30

appeared through counsel and filed written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶31

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶32

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

¶33

¶34

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.P14. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced. 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.973,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

¶35

The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

¶36

¶37

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased

¶38

was aged about 57 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.800/- per day by doing vegetable merchant. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.7,500/-.

¶39

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 10% of the established income towards ‘future prospects’ should be the warrant where the deceased was between the age group of 50-60 years. The same has been considered by the Tribunal.

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

2782] , each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

¶43

Fourthly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

¶44

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:

¶45

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.800/- 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.

¶46

Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’.

¶47

¶48

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.

¶49

Fourthly, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –v- Venkateshan.V and others (MFA 5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 7% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶50

Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶51

and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶52

It is not in dispute that Shivalingegowda

¶53

died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash

¶54

¶55

and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶56

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.800/- per day. 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 2017, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m.

¶57

To the aforesaid income, 10% 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.12,100/-. Since there are 2 dependents, it is appropriate to deduct 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses

¶58

¶59

and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 57 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘9’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,71,200/- (Rs.12,100129*2/3) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

¶60

In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.16,500/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.16,500/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’. Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

¶61

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL

¶62

INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant No.2, daughter of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’.

¶63

¶64

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the

¶65

following compensation:

¶66

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in (Rs.)
Loss of dependency	8,71,200
Funeral expenses	16,500
Loss of estate	16,500
Loss of spousal consortium	44,000
Loss of Parental consortium	44,000
Medical expenses Total	2,55,000 12,47,200

¶67

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.12,47,200/- as against Rs.973,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶68

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 7% p.a. (enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a.) from the date of filing of the claim petition till

¶69

¶70

the date of realization, within a period of six weeks

¶71

from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶72

In view of the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by

¶73

this Court, the claimants are not entitled for interest

¶74

for the delayed period of 167 days in filing the appeal.

¶75