Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1208 (KAR)

Ramesh Kumar K L v. Kempanna

2020-06-24

ALOK ARADHE, M.NAGAPRASANNA

body2020
JUDGMENT M Nagaprasanna, J. - This appeal, though listed for admission, is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VI, Shivamogga, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short) in MVC No.341/2013. 3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 29.12.2012, one Latha Ramesh was riding a TVS Wego scooter bearing registration No.KA-09-ER-8928 along with her daughter, who was pillion rider and they were proceeding from JSS Women's College to their house. At that time, when they reached Bogadhi ring road junction, one Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-42-7497 being driving by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the left side of the scooter. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased Latha Ramesh and her daughter fell down. The deceased died on her way to the hospital succumbing to the injuries at 2.10 p.m. 4. The claimants namely husband and daughters of deceased Latha Ramesh filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act in MVC No.341/2013 on the ground that the deceased was aged about 42 years at the time of accident and was doing household work along with tailoring and was earning more than '.15,000/- p.m. The claimants contended that they were solely depended on the income of the deceased and claimed compensation to the tune of '.40,70,000/- along with interest. 5. On service of notice, the respondents appeared and filed separate statement of objections. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 denied the case of the claimants and also contended that there was no relationship with the alleged damages to the vehicle. The 3rd respondentinsurance company also filed its statement of objections and denied the entire case of the claimants and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent and the accident had occurred on the contributory negligence of the rider of the scooter, namely, the deceased. It was also contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants was highly exorbitant. 6. It was also contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants was highly exorbitant. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined two witnesses and claimant No.1 was examined as PW-1 and claimant No.2 as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P.108. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tipper Lorry by its driver, 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 '.7,65,112/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the claimants in MVC No.341/2016. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contend that though it was claimed by them that the deceased was doing household work along with tailoring and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-. It was also contended that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration future prospects while assessing compensation under the head of loss of dependency. It is also contended that the compensation awarded on all the conventional heads is on the lower side. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. Therefore, the notional income has to be fixed as per the guidelines issued by the High Court Legal Services Committee. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2012, the notional income has to be taken at '.7,000/- p.m. To the aforesaid amount, 25% 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 '.8,750/-. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . Thus, the monthly income comes to '.8,750/-. Out of which, we deem it appropriate to deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to '.5,833/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 42 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 14 has to be adopted. The claimants are entitled to '.9,79,944/- (5,833 x 12 x 14) on account of loss of dependency. 10. 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 '.1,20,000/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled to 30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of '.11,29,944/- 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. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.