IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.7949 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SMT RATHNAMMA, W/O PRASANNA ARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 2. PRASANNA ARADHYA, S/O LATE SANGARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT HALLARE VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 570 301.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VEERABHADRASWAMY H P., ADV.) AND:
1. IMRAN SHARIFF S/O NASRULLA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT. SARASWATHI COLONY, NANJANAGUD TOWN, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 570 301.
2. BASAVARAJU, S/O. SIDDASETTY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.GOLUR VILLAGE, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 301.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ICICI LAMBARD INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEAR SARASWATHI THEATRE, SARASWATHI PURAM, MYSORE - 24.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H N KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR R.3; R1 AND R2 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.47/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, AT NANJANGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimants are in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying for enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 25/8/2014 in M.V.C.No.47/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC & MACT, Nanjangud.
2. The claimants are parents of the deceased, P. Praveenaradhya. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of one P. Praveenaradhya. It is stated that the deceased was driver of TATA Magic vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-09-B-3185 and on 12-4-2013 he had left his vehicle for applying grease and he was standing on the foot-path, at that time the driver of the Goods Tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-09-B-8177 came in a high speed with rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Nanjangud and then shifted to K.R.Hospital, Mysore. Subsequently, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. It is further stated that the deceased was aged 23 years as on the date of accident and he was working as driver, earning Rs.15,000/- per month,.
3. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared and filed their objection statement. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in their statement denied the claim petition averments and further stated that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. Respondent No.3- insurer in its objection statement denied the claim petition averments and further contended that the accident occurred was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle but it was due to the negligent act on the part of the deceased himself.
4. Claimant No.2-father of the deceased examined himself as PW-1 and marked documents Exs.P-1 to P-9.
Respondent-Insurer got marked Insurance Policy as Ex.R-1.
5. The Tribunal on appreciating the material on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.5,26,000/- with interest
While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month and adopted multiplier of ‘18’. The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are before this Court in this appeal, praying for enhancement of compensation.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurer. Perused the material on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and prays for enhancement of compensation. He further submits that the deceased was working as driver and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But the Tribunal without appreciating the evidence of PW1- father of the deceased, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is on the lower side. It is his further submission that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation on the head of ‘Future prospects’. As the deceased was aged 23 years as on the date of accident, the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards ‘Future prospects’. Further he submits that the claimants are parents of the deceased who have lost young son. Thus, they would be entitled for compensation on the head of ‘Filial 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, he prays for enhancement of compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent– Insurer would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation, which needs no interference. Further he submits that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is proper and correct as the claimants have not made available any material to prove their contention that the deceased was working as driver and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case.
a) Whether the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards ‘Future prospects’?
b) Whether the claimants would be entitled for compensation on the head of ‘Filial consortium’?
c) Whether the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation?
Answer to the above points would be in the affirmative for the following reasons.
10. The accident occurred on 12-4-2013 involving TATA Magic vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-09-B-3185, Goods Tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-09-B-8177 and the accidental death of one P. Praveenaradhya, son of the claimants are not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants’ appeal is for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is on the lower side. The claimants state that the deceased was working as driver and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimants have not placed on record any material to establish that the deceased profession was driving and to say that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In the absence of any material/document to indicate the exact income of the deceased, the Tribunal notionally assessed the income at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is on the lower side. The accident is of the year 2013. This Court and the Lok Adalath while settling the accident claims of the year 2013 would normally assess the notional income at Rs.8,000/- per month. In the instant case also in the absence of any material/document to establish the avocation and income of the deceased, it would be appropriate to assess Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased for determination of the compensation.
11. The Tribunal failed to award any compensation on the head ‘Future prospects’. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 23 years as on the date of accident. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, has held that wherever the deceased was aged below 40 years, the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards ‘Future prospects’. Accordingly, in the instant case also the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards ‘Future prospects’. The claimants are parents of the deceased who have lost young son aged 23 years and have lost love and affection, care of their son throughout their life. Hence, they would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each on the head of ‘Filial consortium’ as per the decision of 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-appellants would be entitled for modified enhanced compensation as follows:
12. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for enhanced modified compensation of Rs.13,19,600/- as against Rs.5,26,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization as awarded by the Tribunal. The apportionment and deposit of the compensation amount would be as ordered by the Tribunal.
The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
SD/- JUDGE SMJ