Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 385 (KAR)

George Rodrigues v. Sathish

2020-02-10

ALOK ARADHE, RAVI V.HOSMANI

body2020
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 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 09.09.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 13.10.2012 at about 4.10 p.m., the deceased Reford Ashwin Rodrigues was riding his Bajaj Pulsar bearing registration No.KA-19 ED-7434 from side and when he reached near Gundyadka Bhajana Mandira, Puthige Village, goods lorry bearing registration No.KA-30-1561 which came from the opposite direction and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized. However, he succumbed to his injuries on 14.10.2012. Thereupon, the claimants filed petition under Section 166 of the Act in which inter alia it was pleaded that the deceased, at the time of accident, was aged 25 years and was working as Office Assistant at Mechanical Engineering Services EST, Dubai, UAE. It is further submitted that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.60,000/- and accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,35,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 namely the driver and owner of the vehicle in question remained absent and they were proceeded exparte. Respondent No.3 filed written statement in which it was admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with it. The age, income and avocation of the deceased was denied and it was denied that the lorry was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 examined himself as PW-1 and filed as many as 32 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P32. The legal officer of respondent No.3 was examined as RW-1 and 3 documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were tendered in evidence. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. It was further held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.8,93,000/- as compensation. 4. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. It was further held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.8,93,000/- as compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Claims Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased on the lower side and a paltry sum has been awarded on account of loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Even though the deceased is said to be employed as Office Assistant at Mechanical Engineering Services EST, Dubai, UAE and even though the claimants have filed salary certificates namely Ex.P20 to Ex.P22, however, it is pertinent to mention here that nobody has been examined on behalf of the claimants to prove the aforesaid salary certificates. However, from perusal of Ex.P19 namely Visa which has been produced, the monthly income of the deceased is shown to be 2,500 Dirham per month which in terms of the Indian Rupees comes to Rs.30,300/-. To the aforesaid amount, 40% has to be added towards future prospects. Thus, it comes to Rs.42,420/-. Out of Rs.42,420/-, 50% of the amount has to be deducted as personal expenses which comes to Rs.21,210/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 25 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 18 has to be applied. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.45,81,360/- on account of loss of dependency. In addition, 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’ AIR 2017 SC 5157 , the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.46,51,360/-. 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.