IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.4230 OF 2014 C/W. M.F.A.NO.2009/2014 (MV) IN M.F.A.No.4230/2014:
Between:
1. M.Krishna Murthy S/o. Muniyappa Aged about 51 years 2. Sujatha W/o. M.Krishna Murthy Aged about 40 years 3. Manasa D.K.
D/o. M. Krishna Murthy Aged about 22 years All are r/at No.41/1 Somanna Garden Thindlu, Bengaluru North Bengaluru Urban District – 560 098. ... Appellants (By Sri K.V.Shyamprasad, Advocate) And:
1. Savitramma W/o. Ramachandra R/at No.5/249, 5th Main Chamundeshwari Layout Vidyaranyapura Bengaluru – 560 097.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Unity Building, Mission Road Bengaluru – 560 027. ... Respondents (By Sri K.S.Lakshminarasapa, Advocate for Sri B.C.Seetharama Rao, Advocate for R2; R1 – notice a/w v/o. dated 16.02.2015) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 31.10.2013 passed in MVC No.853/2013 on the file of the 13th Additional Small Causes Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member MACT, Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
IN M.F.A.No.2009/2014:
Between:
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office Mahalakshmi Chambers M.G.Road, Bengaluru – 560 001 Rep. by its Manager Sri V.Ramachandran. ... Appellant (By Sri K.S.Lakshminarasapa, Advocate for Sri B.C.Seetharama Rao, Advocate) And:
1. M.Krishna Murthy S/o.K.Muniyappa Aged about 51 years 2. Sujatha W/o. M.Krishna Murthy Aged about 40 years 3. Manasa D.K.
D/o. M. Krishna Murthy Aged about 22 years All are r/at No.41/1 Somanna Garden Thindlu, Bengaluru North Bengaluru Urban District – 560 098.
4. Smt. Savitramma, Major W/o. Ramachandrappa R/at No.5/249, 5th Main Chamundeshwari Layout Vidyaranyapura Bengaluru – 560 097. ... Respondents (By Sri K.V.Shyamprasad, Advocate for R2 & R3; R4 – Notice a/w v/o. dated 09.06.2014) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 31.10.2013 passed in MVC No.853/2013 on the file of the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member MACT, Bengaluru, awarding compensation of Rs.12,67,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
These MFAs coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:
JUDGMENT The claimants as well as the insurer are before this Court aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 31.10.2013 in M.V.C.No.853/2013 on the file of the MACT, Court of Small Causes at Bengaluru (SCCH-15).
2. The claimants are the parents and sister of the deceased. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of deceased D.K.Hariprasad in a road traffic accident, which occurred on 02.01.2013. It is stated that on 02.01.2013, the deceased while returning back to home in Ritz car bearing registration No.KA-50 N-4416, the car was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the driver lost his control over the car and dashed it against the road side tree. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. It is stated that the deceased was aged 23 years and he was working as Collection Agent in Docomo Company and he was receiving salary of Rs.14,000/- per month.
3. Respondent No.2 – insurer appeared before the Tribunal and filed its objection denying the petition averments. However, it has admitted the insurance policy in respect of car and its in force on the date of accident. It was further stated that the driver of the car was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the car as on the date of the accident. Claimant/Appellant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and employer of the deceased was examined as PW.3, apart from marking 19 documents.
4. The Tribunal on analyzing the material on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.12,67,000/- on the following heads:
Loss of dependency Rs. 6,48,000.00 (6,000x½x12x18) 50% future prospectus Rs. 3,24,000.00 Loss of Love and Affection For P-1 & 2, Rs.50,000.00 each Rs.1,00,000.00 For P-3 Rs. 25,000.00 Rs. 1,25,000.00 Loss of Estate (Rs.50,000/- each to P-1 to P-3) Rs. 1,50,000.00 Transportation of dead body & Funeral expenditure Rs. 20,000.00 Total Rs.12,67,000.00 5. While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and applied multiplier of 18 and deduction of 50% as he was a bachelor. The Tribunal also added 50% of the income of the deceased towards future prospectus. The insurer is in appeal in MFA No.2009/2014 aggrieved by the award of 50% of the income under the head ‘future prospectus’ and awarding of excess compensation under ‘conventional heads’. The claimant is in appeal in MFA No.4230/2014 aggrieved by the quantum of compensation.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company and perused the material on record.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding 50% of the income under the head ‘future prospectus’. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 submits that the deceased was aged 23 years and he was not having fixed income, as such he would be entitled for addition of 40% of his notional income towards ‘future prospectus’. Further, he submits that the deceased was unmarried and the claimants would be entitled only Rs.30,000/- towards ‘conventional heads’. The compensation awarded under the ‘conventional heads’ by the Tribunal is too excessive. Thus, he prays for reducing the compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants in MFA No.4230/2014 submits that the Tribunal has taken only Rs.6,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased, whereas, the deceased was earning Rs.14,000/- per month as salary working as Collection Agent in Docomo Company. He submits that the claimants have also produced Ex.P15-Salary Certificate of the deceased. Ignoring the same, the Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Thus, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that the claimants atleast would be entitled for minimum of Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal.
9. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of material on record, the following questions would arise for consideration in these appeals:
(a) Whether the claimants would be entitled for assessing the income of the deceased more than Rs.6,000/- per month?
(b) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in awarding excess compensation under ‘conventional heads’ and 50% for ‘future prospectus’?
10. The accident is of the year 2013. The claimants states that the deceased was working as Collection Agent in Docomo Company and he was earning Rs.14,000/- per month as salary. Ex.P15 is the salary certificate produced by the claimants. PW.3 is the employer of the deceased. Ex.P15 would indicate that the deceased was paid Rs.11,000/- salary and Rs.3,000/- incentives. PW.3 is said to be the Proprietor of M/s. C.P.Enterprises, where the deceased was working. PW.3 - Proprietor of M/s. C.P.Enterprises has not produced any material to show that he was Proprietor of M/s.C.P.Enterprises and he is the employer of deceased in M/s.C.P.Enterprises. PW.3- Proprietor has also not produced any documents to show that the payments made to the deceased. The Tribunal rejected Ex.P15 and assessed the notional income of the deceased. In the absence of material to show that PW.3 is the proprietor of M/s. C.P.Enterprises and in the absence of material to show that making payment of salary as well as incentives, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased notionally rejecting Ex.P15, but the notional income assessed at Rs.6,000/- per month is on the lower side. This Court and Lok-Adalat while settling the motor accident claims of the year 2013 would normally take Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income to assess the compensation. In the case on hand also and in the absence of cogent material to indicate the exact salary, it would be appropriate to take notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. The deceased was aged 23 years as on the date of accident. As per the decision of the Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra, the claimants would be entitled for addition of 40% of the notional income towards ‘future prospectus’ but the Tribunal committed an error in granting 50% addition to the income towards ‘future prospectus’. Thus, it is held that the claimants would be entitled for addition of 40% of the income towards ‘future prospectus’. The Tribunal also committed an error in awarding compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- under ‘conventional heads’. The deceased was bachelor and the claimants would be entitled for Rs.30,000/- on ‘conventional heads’ as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra. Further, the parents would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards ‘parental consortium’ as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., vs. NANU RAM reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 1546. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for the modified compensation as follows:
Loss of dependency Rs.12,09,600.00 (8,000+40%(Rs.3,200)/2*12*18) Conventional Head Rs. 30,000.00 Parental Consortium Rs. 80,000.00 Total Rs.13,19,600.00 11. The claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,19,600/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal as against Rs.12,67,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent.
Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed in part.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE KA