The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10643 MFA No. 4276 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4276 OF 2016(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MEENA W/O LATE. PARASHURAMA @ PURUSHOTHAM, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, NO.3, 3RD CROSS, CKC GARDEN, SUDHAMNAGAR, BENGALURU - 27. 2. SMT. SHANTHI W/O MANI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: NIL, NO.66, KHADAR SHARIFF GARDEN, SUDHAMNAGAR, BENGALURU - 27. 3. SRI. THIRUMARAN S/O PARSHURAMA @ PURUSHOTHAM, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: GLASS WORK, NO.11-3 A, SUDHAMNAGAR 6TH CROSS, CHAMARAJALPETE, BANGALORE - 27. 4. SRI. SHIVAGAMI W/O SHEKHAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC:NIL, NO.66, KHADAR SHARIEF GARDEN, SUDHAMNAGAR, BANGALORE - 27. 5. SRI. MANIVANNAN S/O PARSHURAMA @ PURUSHOTHAM, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: GLASS CUTTING WORK, NO.3 A, 1ST CROSS, CKC GARDEN, SUDHAMNAGAR, BANGALORE - 27. 6. SRI. KADARESH S/O PARASHURAMA @ PURUSHOTHAM, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10643 MFA No. 4276 of 2016 …APPELLANTS NO.3/2, 1ST CROSS, 2ND MAIN, CKC GARDEN, BANGALORE - 27.
Legal Reasoning
7. SRI. ANANDA S/O PARASHURAMA @ PURUSHOTHAM, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: CABLE OPERATOR, NO. 69, 4TH MAIN, 18TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA, JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE - 27. (BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE (VC)) AND: 1. SRI. DUDEKULA SHABBIR BASHA S/O AHMMED, H.NO.4-331, NR COLONY, AKKAMPALLI VILLAGE, ANANTHPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 004. 2. GOWRISHANKAR S/O SRI. DONNATHIMMAPPA, NO.3/451, NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, KALYANADURGA MANDALAM, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 004. 3. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.9/2, MAHALAXMI COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, IIND FLOOR, OPP. AJANTHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. (BY SRI. M.P. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.2.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3179/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 27TH ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10643 MFA No. 4276 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 16.02.2016 passed by the I Additional Small Causes Judge and XXVII ACMM, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) at in MVC No.3179/2014, for enhancement. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.06.2014 at about 8.15 a.m, deceased Parashuram @Purushotham S/o Subbanna was walking on the footpath at J.C.Nagar near Vijaya Bank. At that time, the driver of TATA 207 vehicle bearing registration No.AP-02-TB-5093 drove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, Parashuram sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 4. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It is contended that the deceased was aged about 70 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as a vegetable vendor. The claimants - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10643 MFA No. 4276 of 2016 were his wife and children and they were depending upon his earnings. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.15 lakhs. 5. Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. If filed objections denying the contentions of the claim petition and it is further contended that liability of respondent No.3 is restricted to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and holding of effective and valid driving license by driver of offending vehicle. Amount of compensation claimed by the claimants, is highly excessive and exorbitant. With these reasons sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. Despite Notice being served, respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear before the Tribunal, they were placed exparte. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the necessary issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined three witnesses as PW-1 to 3 and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P14. Respondent No.3 examined one witness as RW-1 and got marked 16 documents as per Exs.R1 to R16. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10643 MFA No. 4276 of 2016 8. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the pleadings and evidence available on record, held that as on the date of the accident, the driver of the lorry was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the said vehicle. The accident took place and death was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the said compensation amount along with interest jointly and severally. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed the appeal before this Court. 9. Facts of accident and death of Parashuram due to accident are not disputed. Findings of Tribunal on this issue is not disputed. Hence no need to reconsider the same. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination is that: “1 Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is appropriate?” 2. Whether respondent No.3 shall be directed to pay the amount and recover it from owner of the vehicle? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10643 MFA No. 4276 of 2016 10. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions: i) The deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as coolie. But the Tribunal was not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.5,000/-. He further submits that looking to the number of claimants, Tribunal should have deducted 1/6th of his income towards personal expenses. (ii) As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS1 (supra), the claimants are entitled for compensation under the heads of ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’. No compensation is awarded under the said heads. (iii) As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10643 MFA No. 4276 of 2016 LTD. –V- NANU RAM2 each of the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’. Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants prays for enhancement of compensation. 11. It is not in dispute that deceased died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The claimants have not produced any evidence or documents with regard to the income of the deceased. However as the accident is of the year 2014, notional income fixed as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in consultation with the Insurance Companies, the notional income of a victim of an accident of the year 2014 is Rs.8,500/- per month. Hence income taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The deceased was aged about 73 years at the time of his death. It is pertinent to note that except claimant No.1, who is the wife of the deceased, 2 2018 ACJ 2782 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10643 MFA No. 4276 of 2016 others are major sons and daughters. Therefore, deduction taken by the Tribunal as 1/4th is proper. The multiplier applicable is ‘5’. Thus, on the count of loss of dependency, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,82,500/- (Rs.8,500 x 12 x 5 x 1/4). In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- under the head ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- under the head of ‘funeral expenses’. 12. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (Supra) each claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of consortium’. 13. The learned counsel for the claimants submits that in the case of PRANAYA SETHI (referred Supra) Hon'ble Apex Court held that after every three years, amount of compensation to be awarded under conventional heads shall be enhance by 10%. Hence in this case also amount to be awarded under conventional heads be enhanced. The said submission is not tenable. It is pertinent to note that the accident in question had taken - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10643 MFA No. 4276 of 2016 place during the year 2014. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of fixed compensation to be awarded under conventional heads can be reviewed by adding 10% more. The said judgment was delivered during 2017. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for the claimants is not acceptable. Each claimants are entitled of Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium. 14. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation: Compensation under different Heads Amount in (Rs.) Loss of dependency 3,82,500 Funeral expenses Loss of estate Loss of spousal consortium Loss of Parental consortium 15000 15000 40000 2,40,000 Total 6,92,500 The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,92,500/-. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10643 MFA No. 4276 of 2016 15. The Tribunal appreciating the materials available on record rightly held that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license to drive the said vehicle. 3 years shall be date of judgment in the case of PRANAYA SETHI (Supra). Hence, the claimant is not entitled for the said benefit. It is not in dispute that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. The policy of insurance is produced at Ex.R2 and policy was in force as on the date of the accident. The driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence. Therefore, respondent No.3 is liable to compensate the claimants and it is at liberty to recover it from the owner of the vehicle. 16. For the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 16.02.2016 passed by I Additional Small causes Judge and XXVII ACMM, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH- 11) in MVC.No.3179/2014 is modified. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10643 MFA No. 4276 of 2016 (iii) The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,67,500/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization entire amount. (iv) Respondent No.3 - Insurer shall deposit the said amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this award and it is at liberty to recover the same from respondent Nos.1 and 2 in appropriate proceedings. (v) Apportionment and realization of the compensation amount shall be in terms of the award passed by the Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22