SMT.JAMUNA v. SMT. R. SUGANTHI

(BY SRI. G.N. SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14856-DB MFA No. 4128 of 2024 AND:

1. SMT. R. SUGANTHI W/O. RAJENDRAN. N, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.2/98A, THOPPUKADU, MAVELIPALYAM (POST), SANKARI TALUK, SELAM DISTRICT - 637 301. (RC OWNER OF MULTI AXLE GOODS LORRY BEARING NO.TN-52-F-5835)

2. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BUILDING NO.2, 2ND FLOOR, SHANKARA NARAYAN COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 28.06.2024) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.12.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 167/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-18), 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: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) “Whether compensation awarded claimants/appellants under the impugned award in MVC No.167/2020 on the file of III Additional Judge and Motor - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14856-DB MFA No. 4128 of 2024 Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru is just one?” is the question involved in this case.

2. Appellants are claimants No.1 to 4 and respondents 1 & 2 are respondent Nos.1 & 2 before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth as per their ranks before the Tribunal.

3. Claimant Nos.1 & 2 are the widow and minor son and claimant Nos.3 & 4 are the parents of the deceased M.C.Harish. On 24.03.2015 at 2.30 P.M., when Harish was proceeding on the motor bike bearing Regn. No.KA-01-ET- 7091, Multi Axle Goods Lorry bearing No.TN-52-F-5835 hit his motor cycle from behind on Hosapete-Sulibele road. Harish succumbed to the accidental injuries at the spot. At that time respondent Nos.1 & 2 were owner and insurer of Lorry bearing No.TN-52-F-5835.

4. Claimants filed M.V.C.No.167/2020 against respondents contending that deceased Harish was aged 32 years as on the date of accident, he was Solar Water Heater Distributor and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month from the said business. They contended that they were all depending on his income and due to his death, they have suffered damages to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14856-DB MFA No. 4128 of 2024 the tune of Rs.3,89,15,000/-. They further contended that the accident occurred solely due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending Lorry are liable to compensate the said damages.

5. Respondent No.1 did not contest the petition. Respondent No.2 contested the petition denying actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry, age, occupation and income of the deceased and its liability to pay the compensation.

6. In support of the case of the claimants, claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P29 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, RTO was examined as RW.1 and Ex.R1 & R2 were marked.

7. The Tribunal on hearing the parties, by the impugned award held that the accident and consequential death of Harish occurred solely due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry bearing No.TN-52-F-5835. The Tribunal relying on Ex.P28, Income Tax Returns, considered his annual income at Rs.3,93,500/- and deducted Rs.22,500/- out the said amount as income tax and arrived at net income of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14856-DB MFA No. 4128 of 2024 Rs.3,71,000/- per annum. Out of that, the Tribunal deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, added 40% to the same by way of future prospects, applied ‘16’ multiplier and awarded compensation of `62,32,800/- towards loss of dependency.

8. The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of `63,19,800/- under different heads as follows: Loss dependency Loss of consortium Loss of estate Funeral ceremony expenses obsequies Transportation of dead body Total 62,32,800/- 44,000/- 16,500/- 16,500/- 10,000/- 63,19,800////---- 63,19,800 63,19,800 63,19,800

9. The Tribunal directed respondent No.2-Insurer to deposit the award amount with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The claimants have referred the above appeal challenging the quantum of compensation.

10. Shri G.N.Subramani, learned counsel appellants submits that the Tribunal was in error in arriving at the income after deducting the tax shown at Ex.P28 and further calculating the tax which amounts to double deduction. He further submits that the Tribunal committed error in awarding the compensation under the head of loss of consortium to only - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14856-DB MFA No. 4128 of 2024 one claimant instead of awarding compensation under the head of loss of consortium for all the claimants.

11. Per contra, Sri B.C.Shivanne Gowda, learned advocate for respondent No.2 justifies the impugned award. Analysis

12. Admittedly, respondent No.2/insurer has satisfied the impugned award amount. Thus the findings of the Tribunal regarding involvement of the vehicle, negligence on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle and dependency of the claimants have attained finality. Ex.P28/income tax returns of the deceased for the assessment year 2013-14 was submitted on 13.12.2014 i.e. soon before the death of the victim. Therefore, that can be safely relied to assess his income. As per the said document, his annual income is Rs.3,93,500/-. As per Ex.P27/pan card of the deceased, as on the date of accident, he was aged 33 years. Having regard to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.1 and the nature of employment of the deceased, 40% has to be super added to the income of the deceased by way of future 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14856-DB MFA No. 4128 of 2024 prospects. Therefore, his income comes (Rs.3,93,500/- + (40%) = Rs.1,57,400/- =) `5,50,900/-.

13. As per the Finance Act 2014, the tax payable on the income of the deceased was Rs.40,180/-. Therefore, his net income would be (Rs.5,50,900/- - Rs.40,180/- = Rs.5,10,720/- As the deceased had four dependants, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another2, 1/4th has to be deducted out of such income for his personal expenses. Therefore, the net annual income comes to (Rs.5,10,720 x 3/4=) Rs.3,83,040/-. The applicable multiplier is 16. Therefore, the compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency is (`3,83,040/- x16 =) `61,28,640/-.

14. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram3, the claimants are entitled to the compensation of `40,000/- each on the head of loss of consortium with escalation at 10% whereas the Tribunal has awarded compensation of only `44,000/ on the said head. As the accident is of the year 2015, the other claimants are ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14856-DB MFA No. 4128 of 2024 Claimants are held entitled to enhanced compensation of `41,840/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. Respondent No.2 shall deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.41,840/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a from the date of petition till its realization. Respondent No.2 shall pay enhanced compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the Tribunal shall digitally release the said amount to claimant No.1. Registry shall transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49 CT: BHK