Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1119 (KAR)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Puttareddy

2020-06-18

ALOK ARADHE, M.NAGAPRASANNA

body2020
JUDGMENT M Nagaprasanna, J. - These appeals, though listed for admission, are taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. These appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) by the Insurance Company in M.F.A.No.322/2019, questioning the award of compensation, whereas, MFA No.9023/2018 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) in its judgment and award dated 04.09.2018 in MVC.No.505/2016. 3. Since both the appeals arise out of the same Award, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 4. Parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal. 5. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 25.04.2016, the deceased D.P.Nagesh was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-51-EJ-5371 on the left side of the road from Bengaluru to Dasegowdanahally to go to his village to distribute invitation cards of his wedding which was slated to be held on 04.05.2016, when he reached Hariharapura at about 3.30 p.m., on Sira- Madhugiri road, a TVS Moped bearing registration No.KA-64-J-5617 which in a rash and negligent manner came from Badavanahalli side and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 28.04.2016. 6. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of accident and was a Graduate in Bachelor of Engineering and was employed as a Computer and Electrical Servicer and was earning Rs.50,000/- p.m. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/- along with interest. 7. On receipt of notice, respondent No.2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement and denied the petition averments. It denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased as contended by the claimants. It was further contended that the claim of Rs.80,00,000/- was exorbitant and that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid license as on the date of the accident. 8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. It was further contended that the claim of Rs.80,00,000/- was exorbitant and that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid license as on the date of the accident. 8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined himself as PW-1 and got exhibited 25 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 to prove the case. The claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment, interalia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent riding of the TVS Moped, 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.31,02,974/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed. 9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- was without any evidence and the Tribunal relied on Ex.P.25, the salary certificate on the letter head of the Company where the deceased was employed, wherein, Rs.30,000/- is recorded as monthly income. This was not proved in accordance with law, as nobody was examined to prove the said document produced by the claimants. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal has erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- p.m. based on Ex.P.25 salary certificate, whereas, the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/- p.m. He would further contend that the Tribunal has failed to award compensation taking into account the loss of future prospects. 11. We have considered the submissions made by Sri B.C.Shivannegowda, learned counsel for Sri A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri Shantharaj K., learned counsel for the claimants and have perused the record. 12. Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. The deceased was a B.E. Graduate and aged about 29 years at the time of accident. Though no document is produced to prove the income in accordance with law, since he was a B.E. Graduate and accident had occurred in the year 2016, certain amount of probability of his earning will have to be considered and the monthly income, which can be safely determined at Rs.20,000/-. Though no document is produced to prove the income in accordance with law, since he was a B.E. Graduate and accident had occurred in the year 2016, certain amount of probability of his earning will have to be considered and the monthly income, which can be safely determined at Rs.20,000/-. To the said amount, 40% 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 ' NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.28,000/-. Out of which, we deem it appropriate to deduct 50% towards personal expenses as he was a bachelor and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.14,000/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased who was aged 29 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 17' has to be adopted. The claimants are entitled to Rs.28,56,000/- (Rs.28,000/- x 12 x 17) on account of loss of dependency. 13. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ' MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANU RAM, (2018) ACJ 2782 , the claimants are entitled to 40,000/- each as loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Thus, the total amount of compensation under this head is assessed at Rs.1,20,000/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. 14. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses at Rs.7,974/- is just and proper and warrants no interference. 15. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.30,13,974/- . Needless to state that the aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment is made. 16. Accordingly, both the appeals stand disposed of with the modification of the award of the claims Tribunal to the aforesaid extent. In view of the disposal of the main appeals, I.A.No.1/2019 in M.F.A.No.322/2019 is disposed of as it does not survive for consideration.