Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 938 (KAR)

Bhagyalakshmi v. Mahantayya

2020-06-01

S.G.PANDIT, V.SRISHANANDA

body2020
JUDGMENT S.G.Pandit, J. - The claimants/appellants are before this Court in this appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 04.09.2012 in M.V.C. No.493 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Bellary (for short 'the Tribunal'), and praying for enhancement of the compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants, who are the wife, children and parents of deceased M.Raghavendra Rao, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') seeking compensation for the death of M.Raghavendra Rao. It is contended that on 06.05.2012, at about 4.30 p.m., when M.Raghavendra Rao, along with one Shivashankar, was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-35/L-1343, a tempo trax cruiser bearing registration No.KA-36/M-3442 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle. As a result of the said accident, both the rider and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. It is contended that the deceased was working as a Wheel loader operator-cummechanic in Baldota Company and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The deceased was aged 28 years as on the date of the accident. On issuance of notice, the respondents i.e., the driver, owner and the insurer of the tempo trax appeared before the Tribunal. However, only respondent No.3-insurer filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Further, it contended that there was violation of conditions of insurance policy. The claimants, in order to prove their case, got examined claimant No.1 as P.W.1 and another witness, who is the H.R.Manager, MSPL Ltd., as P.W.2, and also got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27. The respondents did not lead any oral evidence, however, copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.R.1. 3. The Tribunal, on assessing the material on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,24,900/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the following heads: 1. Loss of dependency Rs.8,87,400/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- 5. Towards Transportation of dead body & funeral expenses Rs. Loss of dependency Rs.8,87,400/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- 5. Towards Transportation of dead body & funeral expenses Rs. 7,500/- TOTAL Rs.9,24,900/- While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,798/- and deducted th of the said income towards personal expenses of the deceased and adopted multiplier of 17. The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are before this Court in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurance company. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding the compensation towards future prospects. The deceased was aged 25 years as on the date of the accident and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) ACJ 2700 , the claimants are entitled to an addition of 40% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects. He further submits that the amount awarded towards conventional heads is also on the lower side and the same requires to be enhanced. Learned counsel relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited v. Nanu Ram and Others, (2018) ACJ 2782 , submits that the claimants 2 to 5 would be entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental and filial consortium. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurance company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper which needs no interference. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the trial court records, the only point which arises for our consideration is, Whether the claimants are entitled for the addition of the amount towards the future prospects at the rate of 40% of the assessed income and are entitled for the enhanced compensation? 8. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the trial court records, the only point which arises for our consideration is, Whether the claimants are entitled for the addition of the amount towards the future prospects at the rate of 40% of the assessed income and are entitled for the enhanced compensation? 8. The answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following reasons: The accident that occurred on 06.05.2012 involving motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-35/L- 1343 and tempo trax cruiser bearing registration No.KA- 36/M-3442 and the death of M.Raghavendra Rao in the said accident is not in dispute. The claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation by adding 40% of the assessed income of the deceased towards future prospects. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 28 years as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal, based on Ex.P.8-salary slip, determined the income of the deceased at Rs.5,798/- per month. The income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,798/- per month is proper and correct, and the same needs no interference. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case supra has held that the claimants would be entitled for addition of 40% of the income towards future prospects where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case, the claimants are entitled for addition of 40% of the assessed income of the deceased towards future prospects. If 40% of the assessed income is added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.12,41,952/- (Rs.5798 + 40% = Rs.8117 less = Rs.6088 x 12 x 17) towards loss of dependency. 9. Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are minor children of the deceased. The minor children have lost the love and affection of their father for the entire life. Claimant Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased and they have lost their son who was looking after them. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magama General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to claimant Nos.2 and 3 towards parental consortium and to claimant Nos.4 and 5 towards filial consortium. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magama General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to claimant Nos.2 and 3 towards parental consortium and to claimant Nos.4 and 5 towards filial consortium. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the 1st claimant-wife would be entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads. 10. On reassessment, the claimants are entitled to a modified total compensation which is as under - 1. Loss of dependency Rs.12,41,952/- 2. Towards conventional heads Rs. 70,000/- 3. Loss of parental consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to claimant Nos.2 and 3) Rs. 80,000/- 4. Loss of filial consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to claimant Nos.4 and 5) Rs. 80,000/- TOTAL Rs.14,71,952/- Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,71,952/-, as against Rs.9,24,900/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 04.09.2012 passed in M.V.C. No.493/2012 by the Tribunal is hereby modified. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,71,952/-, as against Rs.9,24,900/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The apportionment and deposit of the compensation among the claimants shall be as ordered by the Tribunal.