Smt Nagamma Vs Sri Harisha M S

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11-6-2019 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.628 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T., SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶28

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶32

This appeal is filed by the claimants being aggrieved by

¶33

the judgment and award dated 11-6-2019 passed in M.V.C. No.628 of 2018 on the files of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna, whereby, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,26,352/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32038-DB MFA No. 123 of 2020

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall

¶37

be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.

¶38

Brief facts of the case are that on 2-3-2018 at about

¶39

2:45 a.m., Sri Manjunatha (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was traveling on goods Auto, bearing Registration No.KA-55 4820, on Bannuru Road, Ring Road Junction, near Devegowda Circle, Alanahalli, Mysuru, at that time, the driver of Maruti Swift Desire car, bearing Registration No.KA-05 MP-8698, drove it in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and dashed against the goods Auto of the deceased. Due to this, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to injuries on the spot. Due to his death, mother and father of the deceased lost their dependency and hence, claimed compensation under various heads.

¶40

Heard Smt. S. Naganandini, learned counsel for Sri Jairag G., learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, Smt. Nisha Rebello, learned counsel for Sri A.M. Venkatesh,

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:32038-DB MFA No. 123 of 2020

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company,

¶45

and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶46

Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has contended that the deceased was working as an Auto driver and earning monthly income of Rs.20,000/-, but the Tribunal notionally considered monthly income at Rs.7,500/-, which is meager one. Further, the Tribunal has added only 25% of the income towards future prospects, however, it must be 40%. Hence, she prays to enhance the compensation.

¶47

Per contra , the learned counsel for respondent No.2Insurance Company, supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation under each heads, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, she prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶48

As there is no dispute regarding the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident occurred on 2-3-2018 due to rash and negligent driving of the car,

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:32038-DB MFA No. 123 of 2020

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

bearing Registration No.KA-05 MP-8698, by its driver and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is:

¶53

“Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?”

¶54

After hearing both the learned counsel and perusal of the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

¶55

on lower side. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month without any proof. No documentary evidence is placed on record with regard to income of the deceased. In the absence of any proof of income, taking note of the Circular issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority as well as the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru, we deem it appropriate to reassess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.12,500/per month.

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:32038-DB MFA No. 123 of 2020

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

As per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , 40% of the income must be added towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.5,000/- (12,500 X 40%) and the total income comes to Rs.17,500/- per month (12,500 + 5,000). The claimants, i.e. mother and father of the deceased, are the dependents of the deceased and the deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, 50% of the income shall be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and it works out to Rs.8,750/- per month (17,500 X 50%). The deceased was aged 30 years as on the date of the accident. Hence, the applicable multiplier would be ‘17’ and it works out to Rs.17,85,000/- (8,750 X 12 X 17). This would be the ‘loss of dependency’ as against Rs.9,56,352/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶59

In the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , the Hon’ble Apex Court by referring to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi's

¶60

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:32038-DB MFA No. 123 of 2020

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

case, stated supra, has discussed about granting the compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ and has also issued guidelines for grant of ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’ and ‘filial consortium’. The claimants are the mother and the father of the deceased. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) towards ‘loss of consortium’ as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶63

Further, Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' awarded by the Tribunal are maintained.

¶64

The Tribunal has saddled the liability on the deceased at 15% and on the Insurance Company at 85%. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence is just and proper. Hence, no interference is called for in this regard.

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:32038-DB MFA No. 123 of 2020

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following

¶68

compensation:

¶69

HEADS	Rs.
Loss of dependency	17,85,000.00
Loss of consortium	80,000.00
Loss of estate	15,000.00
Funeral expenses	15,000.00
TOTAL	18,95,000.00
Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	10,26,355.00
TOTAL	8,68,648.00
Less: Negligence contributed by the deceased at 15%	1,30,297.00
ENHANCED COMPENSATION	7,38,351.00

¶70

In the result, we pass the following

¶71

O R D E R

¶72

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶73

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.7,38,351/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realisation.

¶74

9 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:32038-DB MFA No. 123 of 2020

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

iii. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation together with interest within four weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶78