Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 826 (KAR)

Siddalingappa v. Krishnappa

2022-07-01

H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under Sec. 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 dtd. 8/8/2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madhugiri in MVC No.448/2017. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 28/1/2017 the deceasedChethankumar along with others left their Village in order to visit Sagar Taluk to take Aurvedic treatment for diabetic disease in a Car bearing Registration No.KA-43-7466 and the deceased was driving the said Car. At around 10.30 P.M., near Heggere-LabhaDabha Hotel, N.H.206, Tumakuru-Gubbi road, the driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-40-A2508 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner came from Tumakuru side and dashed against the back side of the Car. The deceased parked his Car and the drier of the lorry also stopped his lorry and the deceased got down from the Car and went near the front right side door to question the lorry driver. At that point of time, the driver of the VRL Bus bearing Registration No.PY-05-A-1105 came from Tumakuru side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed towards right portion of the lorry while over taking. As a result, the lorry moved ahead, due to which, the deceased who was standing near the front side door of the lorry fell down and the front wheel of the said lorry ran over the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 3. The claimants filed a petition under Sec. 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest. 4. On service of summons, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have appeared through counsel and filed their separate written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 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 as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 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 as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of respondents, three witnesses were examined as RW-1 to RW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R6. 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 vehicles by its drivers, 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.11, 15, 000.00 along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed both Insurance Companies to deposit 50% compensation amount each along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 6. Sri Sathisha T, learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions: Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.15, 000.00 per month by working as driver. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.10, 000.00. Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [ AIR 2017 SC 5157 ], in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards 'future prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The same may be considered. Thirdly, 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 ], each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40, 000.00 under the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'. Fourthly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal. 7. LTD. -V- NANU RAM [ 2018 ACJ 2782 ], each of the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40, 000.00 under the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'. Fourthly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal. 7. On the other hand, Sri B. Pradeep and Sri A. M. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the Insurance Companies has raised the following countercontentions: Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.15, 000.00 per month, the same is not established by the claimants by producing documents. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally. Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards 'future prospects'. Thirdly, 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 Chethankumar died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicles by its drivers. The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.15, 000.00 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 2017, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.11, 000.00 p.m. To the aforesaid income, 40% 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.15, 400.00. Since the deceased was a bachelor, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.7, 700.00. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is 18'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.16, 63, 200.00 (Rs.7, 700.00*12*18) on account of 'loss of dependency'. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is 18'. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.16, 63, 200.00 (Rs.7, 700.00*12*18) on account of 'loss of dependency'. In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15, 000.00 on account of 'loss of estate' and compensation of Rs.15, 000.00 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 Nos.1 and 2, parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40, 000.00 each under the head of 'loss of filial consortium' . 10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation: Compensation under different Heads Amount in (Rs.) Loss of dependency 16,63,200 Funeral expenses 15,000 Loss of estate 15,000 Loss of Filial consortium 80,000 Total 17,73,200 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.17, 73, 200.00 as against Rs.11, 15, 000.00 awarded by the Tribunal. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 / Insurance Companies are directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.8, 86, 600.00 each 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.