Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 696 (KAR)

Santosh v. Universal Sompo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

2022-06-01

H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

body2022
JUDGMENT : H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. 1. 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 21.06.2018 passed by the Court of the IX Addl. Small Causes and Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in MVC. No. 5392/2016. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 03.07.2016, when the deceased was standing on the extreme left side of road near Malnad Hotel, Kammagondanahalli village, at that time, a car bearing registration No. PB-08-CV-3102, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest. 4. On service of summons, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through counsel and respondent No. 1 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. 5. 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 claimant No. 1 Santhosh @ Dusyanthan as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex. P1 to Ex. P12. On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex. R1. 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 vehicle 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 Rs. 30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions: Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by working as Painter. The claimants are entirely depending upon the income of the deceased. But the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency'. 6. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions: Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by working as Painter. The claimants are entirely depending upon the income of the deceased. But the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency'. Secondly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM, 2018 ACJ 2782 , claimant No. 1 is entitled for compensation of Rs. 40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions: Firstly, claimant No. 1 is the major son and claimant No. 2 is the married sister of the deceased and they are not depending upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency'. Secondly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. It is not in dispute that deceased Subramani died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. But they have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2016, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs. 9,500/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 10% 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 'PRANAY SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs. 10,450/-. Since claimant Nos. 9,500/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 10% 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 'PRANAY SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs. 10,450/-. Since claimant Nos. 1 and 2 are not depending upon the income of the deceased, the compensation under the head of loss of estate' has to be assessed in view of judgment of this court in MFA. No. 7318/2016 disposed of on 23.10.2020. Hence, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased and remaining amount has to be taken as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 54 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is 11'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 6,89,700/- (Rs. 10,450/-*50%*12*11) on account of 'loss of estate'. In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 15,000/- on account of 'funeral expenses'. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE' (supra), claimant No. 1 of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs. 40,000/- under the head of 'loss of parental'. 10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation: Compensation under different Heads Amount in (Rs.) Loss of estate 6,89,700 Funeral expense 15,000 Loss of Parental consortium 40,000 Total 7,44,700 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 7,44,700/- as against Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.