Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1148 (KAR)

Era Nanjegowda v. Managing Director, KSRTC Dept

2019-06-07

H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT : H. T. Narendra Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and award dated 18.01.2018 passed in MVC No.1299/2017 on the file of the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and XIX ACMM Member-MACT Bengaluru (SCCH-23), whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.12,37,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case: On 07.02.2017 at about 10.30 a.m., when the deceased Suresh was riding the two wheeler bearing Registration No. KA-42-E-5310 on Kodihalli Kanakapura road, at Kebbehalli village, Kanakapura taluk, Ramanagara District, at that time, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Registration No. KA-42-F-751 came on its wrong side and dashed against the deceased Suresh. As a result, Suresh fell down and sustained multiple head injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the parents and wife of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal. In support of their case, wife of the deceased and another witness have been examined as PWs-1 and 2 respectively and submitted 17 documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company has examined one witness and not marked any documents. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.12,37,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that at the time of death of the deceased, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month from agriculture. The Tribunal while assessing the income, has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month which is on the lower side. He further contended that while assessing loss of dependency, the Tribunal has not added future prospects, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, (2017) AIR SC 5157]. He further contended that as per the law laid down in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v- NANU RAM @ CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS, (2018) ACJ 2782] Tribunal has not granted compensation under the category of 'love and affection'. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that even though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per month, they have not produced any document to substantiate their claim. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that even though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per month, they have not produced any document to substantiate their claim. Hence, Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. He further contended that as far as compensation under other heads are concerned, the Tribunal has granted excess compensation. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 6. It is not in dispute that Suresh died in the accident occurred on 07.02.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. 7. The claimants are wife and parents of the deceased. Even though they have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per month and they have produced Ex.P.15 Reshme pass book which stands in the name of the father of the deceased, they have not produced any document to establish that after the death of Suresh, there was any reduction in the income. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has to assess the income of the deceased notionally. While assessing notional income, the Tribunal has considered the income at Rs.9,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. This Court in catena of cases, has relied upon the chart prepared by this Court for the purpose of deciding matters at Lok Adalath. According to the chart, for an accident of the year 2017, the income should be taken notionally at Rs.10,000/- per month. Further, 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, (2017) AIR SC 5157], it is held that in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards 'loss of future prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Therefore, since the appellant was aged 32 years at the time of accident, and he was self-employed, the learned Tribunal ought to have added 40% of his notional income towards 'loss of future prospects', in order to calculate the "loss of dependency". However, the learned Tribunal has failed to do so. Therefore, since the appellant was aged 32 years at the time of accident, and he was self-employed, the learned Tribunal ought to have added 40% of his notional income towards 'loss of future prospects', in order to calculate the "loss of dependency". However, the learned Tribunal has failed to do so. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and applied multiplier of 16' while calculating the "loss of dependency" which is just and proper. Hence, the compensation under the head of "loss of dependency" needs to be recalculated. Income of the deceased 10,000/- Add: 40% towards future prospects 4,000/- 14,000/- LESS: 1/3rd towards personal expenses 4,667/- Actual monthly income 9,333/- Multiplier 16 Loss of dependency (9,333 x 16 x 12) 17,91,936/- 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and others (supra) has held that under conventional heads, for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has to be awarded. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of consortium' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses', but the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards 'loss of estate'. Hence, Rs.15,000/- is awarded under this category. 9. Further, as far as the other contention is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., supra, has held that the parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the category of 'love and affection'. Hence, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to the parents of the deceased is awarded towards 'love and affection', i.e. Rs.40,000/- x 2 = Rs.80,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation has been reassessed. 10. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 18.01.2018 passed in MVC No.1299/2017 on the file of the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and XIX ACMM Member-MACT Bengaluru (SCCH-23), stands modified. The claimants are entitled to receive the following compensation: Compensation under different Heads Amount in (Rs.) Loss of dependency 17,91,936 Funeral expenses 15,000 Loss of estate 15,000 Loss of love and affection 80,000 Loss of consortium 40,000 Total 19,41,936 11. The claimants are entitled to receive the following compensation: Compensation under different Heads Amount in (Rs.) Loss of dependency 17,91,936 Funeral expenses 15,000 Loss of estate 15,000 Loss of love and affection 80,000 Loss of consortium 40,000 Total 19,41,936 11. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The apportionment of the amount shall be made as per the award passed by the Tribunal.