The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2825 MFA No. 7082 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7082 OF 2021(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. REVAMMA, W/O PANDURANGA @ PANDURANGA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 2. BHAGYA, D/O PANDURANGA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. 3. YOGEESHA, S/O LATE PANDURANGA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 4. VENKATESHA P., S/O LATE PANDURANGA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka ALL ARE RESIDING AT BEDARAPURA VILLAGE, HOGGOTARA POST, HEGGOTARA, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313. (BY SRI SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND: 1. DON THOMAS, S/O THOMAS P.D., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT PERUMANAPARAMBIL, CHOORAKANDI, POOKKOTTUMANNA NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM (D), KERALA STATE-679 334. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2825 MFA No. 7082 of 2021 2. ADIL IQBAL K., S/O MOHAMMED IQBAL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALLINGAL HOUSE, RAMANKURTH VEETTICHAL, NILAMBUR, MALLAPURAM (D), KERALA STATE-679 330. 3. UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, MOTOR TB HUB, NO.1134, PRINCE OF VALES ROAD, BALLAL CIRCLE, CHAMARAJAPURAM, MYSURU-570 005.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI C. SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.02.2024, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED) …RESPONDENTS THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1392/2017 BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT MYSURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 30.11.2018 passed in MVC.No.1392/2017 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Mysuru (for short ‘the tribunal’). This appeal is founded - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2825 MFA No. 7082 of 2021 on the premise of inadequacy of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: It is the case of the appellants-claimants that on 23.10.2017 at about 7.00 p.m. near Mandakalli Gate, on Mysuru-Nanjangud main road, the deceased Panduranga Shetty was proceeding on his bicycle carefully and cautiously on the left side of the road, at that time, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-10 AG- 7554 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bicycle. Due to the said impact, the deceased Panduranga Shetty fell down and sustained grievous injuries and consequently, succumbed to injuries on 22.11.2017. Hence, the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2825 MFA No. 7082 of 2021 3.1 On service of notice, respondent No.1 appeared but did not file a statement of objections. Respondent No.2 did not make his appearance and was placed ex parte. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company appeared and filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 3.2 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsels for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,57,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. and directed respondent No.3-Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount within thirty days. 3.3 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the tribunal has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2825 MFA No. 7082 of 2021 committed a gross error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation. The tribunal has failed to take into consideration the age of the deceased Panduranga Shetty to be 55 years on the basis of Ex.P3-Post mortem report and erroneously, taken the age on the basis of the Aadhaar card as 64 years, which is incorrect, illegal and arbitrary. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants that the income taken by the tribunal is Rs.8,250/- per month instead of taking the income of Rs.15,000/- per month, as the deceased was working as a Coolie and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, as per the statement made by PW.1 on oath. 4.1 It is also contended by the learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, which is erroneous and he contends that there is no such principle of deduction of 1/3rd in the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules, and the same is highly irregular, irrational and illegal and it is required to be set aside and the entire amount - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2825 MFA No. 7082 of 2021 requires to be awarded as compensation to the claimants without deduction. It is further contended that on other heads also the tribunal has awarded meager compensation, which requires enhancement. On these grounds, he seeks enhancement of compensation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-Insurance Company contends that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. In view of the fact that no proof of income is produced, the tribunal has taken the income correctly at Rs.8,250/- per month. It is further contended that the deduction made by the tribunal is also proper and the multiplier applied by the tribunal is also correct and the same does not call for interference. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for appellants- claimants and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle and death having occurred due to the road - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2825 MFA No. 7082 of 2021 traffic accident are all established and proved by the production of Exs.P1 to P13. Therefore, the negligence is rightly attributed to the rider of the offending vehicle, which either way, is not questioned by the rider in any proceedings. 7. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income, deduction and multiplier for awarding compensation, the following will have to be considered: It is the claim of the claimants that the deceased was aged 55 years as on the date of occurrence of accident and they have produced Ex.P3-Post mortem report to show the age of the deceased to be 55 years. The claimants have also produced the copies of Aadhaar card at Exs.P9 and P10, on the basis of which the age is shown to be 64 years. The question remains as to whether the age is required to be taken as per the post mortem report or as stated on oath by claimant-PW.1 or whether on the basis of the document of the Aadhaar cards at Exs.P9 and P10. The post mortem report is on the basis of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2825 MFA No. 7082 of 2021 statement made by the dependents or legal representatives or the person stating so before the Doctor, which is elicited and recorded in the post mortem report. The Aadhaar card is a document of the Government that may not be exactly correct as claimed by the learned counsel for claimants, but the age depicted in the Aadhaar card at Exs.P9 and P10 is 64 years, which is produced by the claimants themselves. If the age is contrary to the document produced as per the Aadhaar card, the onus lies upon the claimants to produce other material relevant to Government records or certain oral evidence to establish the correct age for calculation and apply the correct multiplier. In the present case no such material having been produced, the tribunal has arrived at the assessment of age to be 64 years on the basis of the Aadhaar card is correct, and I do not find any error having been committed by the tribunal. Hence, age is taken at 64 years. In view of the same, the appropriate multiplier for the age of 64 years is '7', which is correctly taken by the tribunal and the same is also not interfered. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2825 MFA No. 7082 of 2021 8. Now coming to the aspect of income, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellants- claimants that the income is taken on the lower side. The tribunal taken the income of Rs.8,250/- per month, in view of there being no proof of income. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.11,000/- for the accident year 2017. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.11,000/-. 9. The next aspect would be the deduction towards personal and living expenses. Though the learned counsel for appellants-claimants has stated that there is no such provision made for deduction of personal and living expenses in the Act or the Rules, by way of precedents, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 and in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2825 MFA No. 7082 of 2021 680 that certain deductions are to be made towards personal and living expenses of an individual towards contribution to the family to arrive at just and reasonable compensation. Unless the same is challenged and set aside, by the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is a precedent on hand as of now, the deduction applied by the tribunal at 1/3rd, in my opinion, is not correct, as the there are 4 dependants. Hence, 1/4th would have to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Under the circumstances, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.6,93,000/- (Rs.11,000/- - 1/4th = Rs.8,250/- x 12 x 7) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.4,62,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 10. The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection and the same requires to be modified. As there are four dependents, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- per head as per the judgment of the Hon’ble - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2825 MFA No. 7082 of 2021 Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680. Therefore, under the head loss of consortium, the claimants are entitled for Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 4) along with 20% escalation towards two block period, which would be Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- + 20%). 11. The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which also do not call for interference. In all, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.30,000/- under these heads. However, 20% escalation on the same to be awarded, which would come to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 20%). 12. The tribunal awarded Rs.1,75,000/- towards medical expenses, which does not call for interference and the same is retained. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:2825 MFA No. 7082 of 2021 13. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,96,000/- as against Rs.7,57,000/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Loss of dependency Loss of consortium Loss of estate and funeral expenses Medical expenses TOTAL Amount in Rs. 6,93,000-00 1,92,000-00 36,000-00 1,75,000-00 10,96,000-00 i) ii) 14. Accordingly, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The appeal is allowed-in-part; The judgment and award dated 30.11.2018 passed in MVC.No.1392/2017 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Mysuru, is modified; iii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,96,000/- as against Rs.7,57,000/- awarded by the tribunal; iv) The interest awarded by the tribunal at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.7,57,000/- is left undisturbed. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:2825 MFA No. 7082 of 2021 The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum; v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Compnay within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; vi) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellants-claimants upon proper verification; vii) The claimants would not be entitled to the interest for the delay period; viii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact; Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN CT:SNN