Smt. Siddagangamma Vs Sreedharamurthy

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.283/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

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

¶31

This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants seeking

¶32

for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 03.10.2016 passed in M.V.C. No.283 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Tumakuru (for short 'the Tribunal' ).

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37282-DB MFA No. 2714 of 2017

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall

¶36

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

¶37

Brief facts of the case are that on 09.06.2012 at about 9.00 p.m., when one Sri Pandukumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was crossing Sira - Bangalore road near Durga Bar, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-04-C-6741 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. As a result, deceased sustained head injuries and succumbed to injuries on the spot. Due to his death, natural mother, step mother and brother have lost their dependency, this led to registration of FIR and investigation. Hence, claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on various heads.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has vehemently contended that without considering the material available on record, the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/per month, which is on lower side. He submits that the deceased was aged 36 years at the time of the accident and was working as Computer Operator in Taluk Office and also

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37282-DB MFA No. 2714 of 2017

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

involved in doing DTP work, he was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month and he further contended that the Tribunal, has not granted, fair and reasonable compensation under conventional heads. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶42

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2-

¶43

Insurance Company, supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submits that on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under each heads, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He further submits that the Tribunal has considered 50% towards future prospects, which is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 which has to be reduced to 40%. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶44

Heard Sri. Abdul Khadar for Sri Mushtaq Ahmed,

¶45

learned counsel for the appellants- claimants and Sri. B.S. Umesh, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37282-DB MFA No. 2714 of 2017

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Company and perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶49

As there is no dispute regarding the death in a road traffic accident occurred on 09.06.2012 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of lorry bearing Registration No.KA-04-C-6741 and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that would arise for our consideration in this appeal is:

¶50

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

¶51

The accident is of the year 2012 and no documentary evidence is placed on record to assess the 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 claimant at Rs.7,000/- per month. The deceased was aged 36 years at the time of the accident. The respondent

¶52

Insurance Company has not disputed this aspect. As per the

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:37282-DB MFA No. 2714 of 2017

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SMT. SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT

¶56

CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 , multiplier applicable to the age of the claimant is '15'.

¶57

The Tribunal has wrongly added 50% of the assessed income towards future prospects, which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶58

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and

¶59

Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Therefore, 40% of the assessed income must be added towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.2,800/- (7,000 X 40%) and the total income comes to Rs.9,800/- per month (7,000 + 2,800). The deceased died as a bachelor. Therefore, 50% of the income shall be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and it works out to Rs.4,900/- per month (9,800 X 50%). The deceased was aged 36 years as on the date of the accident. Hence, the applicable multiplier would be ‘15’ and it works out to Rs.8,82,000/- (4,900 X 12 X 15). This would be the ‘loss of dependency’ as against Rs.8,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶60

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:37282-DB MFA No. 2714 of 2017

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

The Tribunal has committed an error in assessing compensation under conventional heads. In the case of Magma

¶63

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 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 mother, step mother and brother of the deceased. Since claimant No.2 is the natural mother of the deceased she is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium' and claimant Nos.1 and 3 are the step mother and step brother of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation under the head 'loss of consortium'. Further, the claimants are also entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head 'Loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/- towards 'Funeral expenses'.

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:37282-DB MFA No. 2714 of 2017

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following

¶67

compensation:

¶68

HEADS	Rs.
Loss of dependency	8,82,000
Loss of consortium	40,000
Loss of estate	15,000
Towards Transportation and Funeral expenses	15,000
TOTAL	9,52,000
Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	8,58,000
ENHANCED COMPENSATION	94,000

¶69

In the result, we pass the following

¶70

O R D E R

¶71

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶72

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.9,52,000/- as against Rs.8,58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the additional compensation of Rs.94,000/- from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realisation.

¶73

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:37282-DB MFA No. 2714 of 2017

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

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

¶76