SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Kar) 324

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD, J.
Santosh and Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Universal Sompo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
MFA No. 7028 of 2018 (MV)
Decided On : 01-06-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shripad V. Shastri, Advocate
For the Respondents: B.C. Shivanne Gowda, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for death in a road accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, taking into account the notional income of the deceased and the entitlement of the claimants under different heads of compensation.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation for Death in Road Accident - Section 166, Section 173(1) - The court discussed the compensation under different heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of parental consortium. It referred to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 'PRANAY SETHI' and 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE' cases to determine the notional income of the deceased and the entitlement for compensation. The court modified the judgment of the Claims Tribunal and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 7,44,700 to the claimants.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased was hit by a car and sustained grievous injuries, leading to his death. The claimants filed a petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It assessed the compensation under different heads and modified the judgment of the Claims Tribunal, awarding a total compensation of Rs. 7,44,700 to the claimants.

Issues: The main issues were the determination of compensation for the death of the deceased and the entitlement of the claimants under different heads of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the legal principles established in the 'PRANAY SETHI' and 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE' cases to determine the notional income of the deceased and the entitlement for compensation.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, and the judgment of the Claims Tribunal was modified. The claimants were awarded a total compensation of Rs. 7,44,700, and the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. within a specified period.

JUDGMENT :

H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.

1. 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 21.06.2018 passed by the Court of the IX Addl. Small Causes and Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in MVC. No. 5392/2016.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 03.07.2016, when the deceased was standing on the extreme left side of road near Malnad Hotel, Kammagondanahalli village, at that time, a car bearing registration No. PB-08-CV-3102, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

4. On service of summons, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through counsel and respondent No. 1 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

5. 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 claimant No. 1 Santhosh @ Dusyanthan as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex. P1 to Ex. P12. On behalf of respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex. R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle 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 Rs. 30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

    Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by working as Painter. The claimants are entirely depending upon the income of the deceased. But the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency'.

Secondly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM, 2018 ACJ 2782, claimant No. 1 is entitled for compensation of Rs. 40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection and consortium'. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:

    Firstly, claimant No. 1 is the major son and claimant No. 2 is the married sister of the deceased and they are not depending upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency'.

Secondly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. It is not in dispute that deceased Subramani died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. But they have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2016, the notional income of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top