Rajamma Vs Divisional Controller

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25-7-2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.557 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

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

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and learned counsel for respondent-Corporation.

¶30

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 25.07.2019 passed in MVC No.557/2016 on the file of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru, (for short, 'Tribunal') whereby, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,54,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶31

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:31690-DB MFA No. 421 of 2021

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

3. Brief facts of the claimants' case before the Tribunal are as

¶36

under:-

¶37

On 02.02.2016 at about 7.30 a.m., near Vaddarapalya bridge, on Mysuru-Manandavadi main road, when Channegowda (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was proceeding on left side of the road by riding his TVS Moped, bearing registration No.KA-01 EP-4073 towards Kannenahalli, H.D. Kote Taluk, at the same time, the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-09 F 5157 drove the same in rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed to the TVS Moped of Channegowda from backside, thus caused the accident and the said bus dragged the moped to some distance alongwith the rider. Due to the said impact, Channegowda succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. Hence, the claimants had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of M.V. Act seeking compensation. The deceased was aged 50 years and was involved in coconut business and was also running provision stores in Hommarahalli village, thereby earning a profit of Rs.1,000 to Rs,2000/- per day and maintaining the family.

¶38

The Tribunal by considering the evidence on record as per Exs-P1 to P9, Exs-R1 to R3 and oral evidence of PWs-1, 2 and RW.1 allowed the claim petition in-part and awarded a total compensation

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31690-DB MFA No. 421 of 2021

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

of Rs.7,54,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed this appeal.

¶42

Smt. Suma Kedilaya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants strenuously contended that the Tribunal has granted meager compensation under all heads. The Tribunal has not granted fair and reasonable compensation under the conventional heads. Though the claimants are entitled for future prospectus, however the Tribunal has not granted the same. Further, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m., which is on the lower side. Infact, the deceased was involved in a coconut business and also running a provision store and earning Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per day, but these aspects are not considered by the Tribunal. Hence, he sought to allow the appeal.

¶43

Per-contra, learned counsel Smt. Nirmala for respondent/Corporation supports the impugned judgment and award passed by 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. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31690-DB MFA No. 421 of 2021

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Having heard learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers including original records of the Tribunal, the following point would arise for our consideration in this appeal:-

¶47

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

¶48

In the instant case, the Insurance company has not disputed the accident, cause of death of the deceased and liability to pay compensation to the claimants. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m., which is on meager side. The accident is of the year 2016. No documentary evidence is placed on record with regard to the income of the deceased. In the absence of any proof of income, taking note of the circular issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority as well as High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru, we deem it appropriate to re-assess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,500/- p.m.

¶49

The deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of the accident. The respondent Corporation has not disputed this aspect. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31690-DB MFA No. 421 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and

¶53

another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is ‘13’.

¶54

The deceased died leaving behind three claimants/dependants and therefore, appropriate deductions towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/3^rd . The Tribunal has not considered the future prospectus. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 has held that if the deceased is within the age group of 50 to 60 years, future prospectus would be considered at 10% of the assessed income towards future prospectus. The deceased was self-employed and between the age group of 50 to 60 years. Thus, the 'loss of dependency' is reckoned as under:-

¶55

9500 +10% future prospects = Rs.10,450 x 1/3 =3483,

¶56

Rs.10450 -3483= 6967

¶57

Rs.6967x12x13 =Rs.10,86,852/-

¶58

The Tribunal has committed an error in not granting fair compensation under conventional heads. As per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:31690-DB MFA No. 421 of 2021

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and

¶62

Pranay Sethi's case referred supra, the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards 'loss of consortium' with 20% escalation, amounting to Rs.1,44,000/-, Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000 +20% escalation) towards 'loss of estate and Rs.18,000/-(Rs.15,000 + 20% escalation) towards 'funeral expenses'. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to modified compensation as under.

¶63

Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following

¶64

compensation:-

¶65

Compensation under different Heads	Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency	10,86,852
Loss of consortium(Rs.48,000 x 3)	1,44,000
Towards loss of estate	18,000
Towards funeral expenses	18,000
TOTAL	12,66,852
Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	7,54,000/-
BALANCE	5,12,852/-

¶66

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of

¶67

Rs.12,66,852/- as against Rs.7,54,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

¶68

In the result, we pass the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed-in-

¶71

part.

¶72

8 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:31690-DB MFA No. 421 of 2021

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

The judgment and award dated 25.07.2019 passed in MVC No.557/2016 on the file of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru, is modified to the extent stated hereinabove.

¶76

The claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,66,852/- as against Rs.7,54,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with enhanced compensation of Rs.5,12,852/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization.

¶77

The respondent/Corporation shall deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal at 6% p.a. within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

¶78