Chikkarangappa S/o Sannarangappa and Lakshmidevi W/o Chikkarangappa V. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Joshy Mathew S/o Mathew

MFA/5296/2018

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the claimants, Chikkarangappa and Lakshmidevi, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded for the death of their son, Raghavendra KC, in a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of a car, resulting in the death of Raghavendra, who was a Senior Software Engineer earning Rs.1,03,349 per month. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially awarded compensation, which the claimants found inadequate, leading to this appeal. The High Court, after reviewing the evidence and applying relevant legal principles, increased the compensation amount significantly, addressing various heads of damages claimed by the family.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 808628 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS, MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & ORS., UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.
• Laws Referred To: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P B RAJU
• Assessee Lawyers: K KANTH
• Keywords: Compensation; Enhanced compensation; Motor Accident; Negligent driving
• Section: 166; 173(1)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD M.F.A. NO.5296 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN: 1. CHIKKARANGAPPA S/O SANNARANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 2. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O CHIKKARANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. BOTH R/O. NO.12, 1ST CROSS 3RD MAIN, PARVATHINAGAR LAGGERE, BANGALORE-58. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K. LAKSHMI KANTH, ADV.) AND: 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, #213 UNITY BUILDING ANNEX MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU. 2. JOSHY MATHEW S/O MATHEW R/AT. KANDATHINKERE HOUSE 2 OORAKEM MELMURI POST MALAPPURAM, KERALA-141302. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADV., FOR R1 VIDE COURT ORDER DTD:19-11-2018, R2 NOTICE D/W) - - - THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.4.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.7696/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT 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 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation against the judgment dated 13.04.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 14.08.2016, the deceased Raghavendra KC was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-HJ-4573. When he 3 reached near Beenachi, Kerala, a car bearing Registration No. KL-10-AT-2238 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. 3. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and was employed as a Senior Software Engineer at IP Fusion Software India and was earning a sum of Rs.1,03,349/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.80,93,500/- along with interest. 4. The insurance company filed its written statement, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was also averred that the 4 deceased sustained injuries and died on account of fall from the motorcycle. It was also pleaded that the liability of the insurance company would be subject to the rider of the offending car possessing a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.2 examined herself as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The respondents neither produced any oral evidence nor any documentary 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 motorcycle by its rider. It was further held, that as a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the 5 same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.80,93,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.57,603/- per month despite the Ex.P8 Salary which clearly discloses the income of the deceased to be Rs.9,50,000/- per annum. It is further submitted that the no compensation under the head medical expenses has been awarded by the Tribunal despite proving Ex. P4 Medical Bills. It is also submitted that the amount awarded under the other conventional heads are on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.57,603/- on the basis of Ex.P9. It is 6 further submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. The claimants have examined PW2 Bharath Chandrshekhar, on behalf of the employer of the deceased to prove Ex.P8 Salary certificate, Ex.P9 Pay Slip and Ex.P10 Income Tax Return. PW2 Bharath Chandrashekhar in his evidence has stated that the deceased was earning a salary of Rs.7,50,000/- per annum and the same was revised from 29.06.2016 to Rs.9,50,000/-. However, the aforesaid fact has not been substantiated with reliable documentary evidence such as pay slip for the month of July 2016. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.57,603/- per month on 7 the basis of Ex.P9 Pay Slip and Ex.P10 Income Tax Return. 8. 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, 40% of the amount has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.80,644/-. Since, the deceased was a bachelor, therefore, 1/2 of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.40,322/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 25 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘18’ has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to (Rs.40,322x12x18) i.e., Rs.87,09,522/- on account of loss of dependency, out of which Rs.7.5lakhs has to be deleted as the aforesaid amount has already been received by the claimants on account of death of the deceased from the employer. 8 Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.79,59,522/- on account of loss of dependency. 9. In view of laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & ORS.’ (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in ‘UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.’ IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 DECIDED ON 30.06.2020 each of the claimant’s are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss love and affection. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.80,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. In view of the fact that the claim of the claimants for payment of medical expenses incurred by them to the extent of Rs.8,80,642/- , has not been disputed by insurance company, they are held entitled to the same. In addition the claimants also held entitled to an amount of 9 Rs.29,050/- on account of accommodation charges which as also not been contested by the insurance company. Thus, in all the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.89,79,214/-. Needless to state that the aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV "