Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 847 (KAR)

G. babu v. Managing Director K. S. R. T. C.

2022-07-04

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. 1/6/2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.7042/2017. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 17/11/2017 at about 01.40 P.M., the deceased-Jayashree B was proceeding as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-51-ER-1711 on Hosur main road near Suraksha Car Care Showroom, Roopena Agrahara, the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-F-1721 drove the same in high speed, rash and negligent manner and lost control over his vehicle and dashed against the motorcycle from behind. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 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 appeared through counsel and filed 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 got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On behalf of respondent, one witness was examined as RW-1 but no documents were marked. 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.11, 88, 400.00 along with interest at the rate of 6. % p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 6. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.11, 88, 400.00 along with interest at the rate of 6. % p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation amount 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 aged about 21 years at the time of the accident and she was earning Rs.20, 000.00 per month by working as Beautician. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.7, 000.00. Secondly, 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, the learned counsel for the Corporation has raised the following countercontentions: Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.20, 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, 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 Jayashree B 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.20, 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. The Tribunal has rightly added 40% of the income of the deceased towards 'future prospects'. Therefore, 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 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [ AIR 2017 SC 5157 ]. Therefore, 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 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [ AIR 2017 SC 5157 ]. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.15, 440.00. Since the deceased was a spinster, 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 21 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'. Considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable. 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 love and affection 1,00,000 Total 17,93,200 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, 93, 200.00 as against Rs.11, 88, 400.00 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.