Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1263 (KAR)

K. C. Manjula v. N. Shivakumar

2020-06-29

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 18.09.2013 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandya, in M.V.C. No.226/2010. 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 29.11.2009 at about 11.10 p.m., the deceased B.P. Puttaswamy was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-11/U-3927 from Mandya to his native place. While he was traveling on Bangalore-Mysore main road, at B. Yerahalli road cross, a Ford Ikon Car bearing registration No.KA-03/MB-21 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the rear portion of the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to the hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries sustained. 5. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of accident and was an agriculturist having 10-12 acres of wet land and was paying a premium of about Rs. 90,000/- towards life insurance policies, after which he was saving about Rs. 20,000/- per month. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/- along with interest. 6. On service of notice, the 1st respondent appeared but did not file statement of objections. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company filed written statement denying the petition averments. It was contended by the 2nd respondent that the policy had expired on 26.11.2010 and on the date of accident, there was no policy that was existing. The age, avocation and income of the claimant was also denied. It was also contended that the compensation sought was highly excessive and exorbitant. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. 8. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined two witnesses. The age, avocation and income of the claimant was also denied. It was also contended that the compensation sought was highly excessive and exorbitant. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. 8. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined two witnesses. Claimant No.1 herself was examined as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 and got exhibited 12 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P.12. On behalf of the respondent, the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company did not examine any one but marked insurance policy as Ex.R.1. 9. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending car by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,81,550/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. 10. We have heard Sri Sreenivas K.L., learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri D. Vijaykumar, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased as the deceased was paying premium to the tune of Rs. 88,826/- and exhibits were produced to that effect. The Tribunal was further erred in applying 11 multiplier instead of 13, as the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 50 years as evidenced from the autopsy report and the compensation determined on other conventional heads is on the lower side. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would support the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submit that the compensation awarded to the claimants taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,350/- per month is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 13. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only issue that falls for our consideration is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. 13. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only issue that falls for our consideration is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. In the cross examination, she deposes that 10-12 acres of land, which was in the name of deceased, is still available with her. But there is no evidence to contend that, to supervise the land and to get the yield, any amount is required. Nonetheless, the witness would sustain in the cross examination that Life Insurance Corporation premium annually was being paid by the deceased and she had produced a receipt to that effect. It was only from the earning of the deceased, the LIC premium amount was paid. Exs.P.6 to P.9 are the receipts of the premium paid by the deceased during his life time which range from 2002 to 2009. It would indicate that the premium was paid from out of the income of the agricultural land to the Life Insurance Corporation. There is nothing to show that every year from 2002 to 2009, the premium of Rs. 88,226/ was paid. It is only one receipt i.e. on 30.4.2010, the premium paid was Rs. 38,733/-. But, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the premium has been paid every year. 15. Though there is no proof of the actual income that is produced by the claimants of the deceased for an accident of the year 2009, but in terms of the chart prepared by the High Court Legal Services Committee, the notional income has to be taken at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. But looking at the documents at ExsP.6 to P.9 coupled with the evidence of P.W.1-the wife of the deceased and the holding of land namely 10-12 acres for which RTCs have been produced as Ex.P.12, the monthly income of the deceased can be safely assessed at Rs. 6,000/- per month. 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 Rs. 7,500/-. 6,000/- per month. 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 Rs. 7,500/-. Out of which, we deem it appropriate to deduct 1/5th towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs. 6,000/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 50 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 13 has to be adopted. The claimants are entitled to Rs. 9,36,000/- on account of loss of dependency. 16. 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 Rs. 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. 2,00,000/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 11,66,000/-. 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.