Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1244 (KAR)

Parvathamma v. Ashok Kumar N

2020-06-26

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 is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation determined at Rs.7,49,000/- by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) in its judgment and award dated 21.10.2013 in MVC.No.13/2009. 3. Parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal. 4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that, on 30.11.2008, at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased-Gopalappa along with his relative went to Vemgal for their personal work and after finishing their work they were returning from Vemgal on their two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-07/J-7332. The deceased was a pillion rider of the said vehicle and when they approached near Muniyappa garden near Vemgal Chikkaballapur road, one KSRTC bus which was came from their opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the two wheeler. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 5. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and was an agriculturist, earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants were driven to penury. Hence, they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-. 6. On receipt of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company appeared and filed their written statement denying the fact that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent in driving the bus and further denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. In order to prove their case, claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and marked about 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. On the other hand, respondent Nos.2 and 3 examined three witnesses as RWs.1 to 3 and marked about 8 documents as Exs.R1 to R8. In order to prove their case, claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and marked about 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. On the other hand, respondent Nos.2 and 3 examined three witnesses as RWs.1 to 3 and marked about 8 documents as Exs.R1 to R8. The Claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment, interalia, held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.7,49,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, the claimants are before this Court in the instant appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would contend that the Tribunal has awarded compensation which is meager and contrary to law and the income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.20,000/- per month as contended by the claimants. He also submitted that conventional compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company would submit that there is no evidence produced by the claimants to prove that the income of the deceased was Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of the accident and would support the award passed by the Tribunal. 10. The only issue that arises for my consideration is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Admittedly, there is no evidence produced by the claimants to prove that the income of the deceased was Rs.20,000/- per month. In the absence of any evidence, notional income as provided in the chart provided by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is to be taken into consideration. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, since the accident has taken place in the year 2008, the notional income of the deceased is to be determined at Rs.4,500/- p.m. The Tribunal has also taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month. In my opinion it does not call for interference. But the claimants would be entitled to the addition of 40% of future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased 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.6,300/-. Out of which, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses as the dependants are five members and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.4,725/-. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS , (2017) AIR SC 5157 . Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.6,300/-. Out of which, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses as the dependants are five members and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.4,725/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased who was aged 25 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 18' has to be adopted. The claimants are entitled to Rs.10,20,600/- (Rs.4,725/- x 12 x 18) on account of loss of dependency. 12. A compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses, love and affection and conveyance charges. 13. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,20,600/-. 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. 14. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with the modification of the award of the claims Tribunal to the aforesaid extent.