Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 697
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Alok Aradhe, M. Nagaprasanna, JJ.
Ramesh Kumar K L - Appellant
Versus
Kempanna - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4375 of 2016
Decided On : 24-06-2020
P. Nataraju, Advocate, M. Narayanappa, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, considering notional income, future prospects, and legal precedents.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Assessment - Section 173(1) - [MOTOR VEHICLES ACT] - [Section 166, Section 173(1)] - The court assessed compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, considering the notional income, future prospects, and legal precedents such as NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI and MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANU RAM. The court modified the judgment of the Claims Tribunal and awarded compensation based on the legal principles and precedents.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimants who were aggrieved by the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The claimants sought compensation for the death of Latha Ramesh in a road accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court assessed the income of the deceased, considered future prospects, and applied legal precedents to modify the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
Issues: Assessment of compensation, consideration of future prospects, and adequacy of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the guidelines for assessing notional income, considered future prospects, and relied on legal precedents to modify the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
Final Decision: The court modified the judgment of the Claims Tribunal and awarded the claimants a total compensation of '.11,29,944/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
JUDGMENT
M Nagaprasanna, J. - This appeal, though listed for admission, is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VI, Shivamogga, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short) in MVC No.341/2013.
3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 29.12.2012, one Latha Ramesh was riding a TVS Wego scooter bearing registration No.KA-09-ER-8928 along with her daughter, who was pillion rider and they were proceeding from JSS Women's College to their house. At that time, when they reached Bogadhi ring road junction, one Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-42-7497 being driving by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the left side of the scooter. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased Latha Ramesh and her daughter fell down. The deceased died on her way to the hospital succumbing to the injuries at 2.10 p.m.
4. The claimants namely husband and daughters of deceased Latha Ramesh filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act in MVC No.341/2013 on the ground that the deceased was aged about 42 years at the time of accident and was doing household work along with tailoring and was earning more than '.15,000/- p.m. The claimants contended that they were solely depended on the income of the deceased and claimed compensation to the tune of '.40,70,000/- along with interest.
5. On service of notice, the respondents appeared and filed separate statement of objections. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 denied the case of the claimants and also contended that there was no relationship with the alleged damages to the vehicle. The 3rd respondentinsurance company also filed its statement of objections and denied the entire case of the claimants and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent and the accident had occurred on the contributory negligence of the rider of the scooter, namely, the deceased. It was also contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants was highly exorbitant.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined two witnesses and claimant No.1 was examined as PW-1 and claimant No.2 as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P.108. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tipper Lorry by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of '.7,65,112/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the claimants in MVC No.341/2016.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants contend that though it was claimed by them that the deceased was doing household work along with tailoring and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-. It was also contended that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration future prospects while assessing compensation under the head of loss of dependency. It is also contended that the compensation awarded on all the conventional heads is on the lower side.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income
