Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY M.F.A. NO.6648/2016 C/W M.F.A. NO.6647/2016, M.F.A. NO.6649/2016, M.F.A. CROB NO.137/2016 IN M.F.A. NO.6649/2016, M.F.A. CROB NO.22/2017 IN M.F.A. NO.6647/2016 & M.F.A. CROB NO.23/2017 IN M.F.A. NO.6648/2016 (MV) M.F.A. NO.6648 OF 2016 BETWEEN: THE CLAIM MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED PLOT NO.3 & 5, LS NO.52 WARD NO.16, 1ST FLOOR FRONT WING, SFL COMPLEX NEAR ROYAL CIRCLE DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD BELLARY - 583 101 BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR NO 1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD
2 ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI - 600002 BY ITS MANAGER. .... APPELLANT (BY MR. O. MAHESH, ADV.,) AND: 1. SURESH BABU E
AGE 33 YRS
S/O ESHWAR NAIK
NO 72, 6TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN
3RD BLOCK, D GROUP LAYOUT
HEROHALLI, VIGRO NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560091. 2. MALLAPPA K. KULLOLI, MAJOR
S/O KANTHIRAV KULLOLI
R/O NO.49, RAM MANDIR ROAD
BIJAPUR - 586101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY MR. A. HANUMANTHAPPA, ADV., FOR R1 R2 SERVED) - - - THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.6.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3897/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 10TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, (SCCH-16), BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.17,25,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. M.F.A. NO.6647 OF 2016 BETWEEN: THE CLAIM MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED PLOT NO.3 & 5, LS NO.52 WARD NO.16, IST FLOOR FRONT WING, SFL COMPLEX NEAR ROYAL CIRCLE DR RAJKUMAR ROAD BELLARY-583101.
3 BY ROYAL SUDNARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD ANNSASALAI, CHENNAI-600002 BY IT'S MANAGER. .... APPELLANT (BY MR. O. MAHESH, ADV.,) AND: 1. SURESH BABU E
S/O ESHWAR NAIK
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO.72, 6TH CROSS
2ND MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, D GROUP LAYOUT
HEROHALLI, VIGRO NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560091. 2. MALLAPPA K. KULLOLI
S/O KANTHIRAV KULLOLI
MAJOR, R/O NO.49, RAM MANDIR ROAD
BIJAPUR-586101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY MR. A. HANUMANTHAPPA, ADV., FOR R1 R2 SERVED) - - - THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3896/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.26,85,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. M.F.A. NO.6649 OF 2016 BETWEEN: THE CLAIM MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED PLOT NO.3 & 5, LS NO.52 WARD NO.16, IST FLOOR
4 FRONT WING, SFL COMPLEX NEAR ROYAL CIRCLE DR RAJKUMAR ROAD BELLARY-583101. BY ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNSASALAI CHENNAI-600002 BY ITS MANAGER. .... APPELLANT (BY MR. O. MAHESH, ADV.,) AND: 1. SURESH BABU E
S/O ESHWAR NAIK
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT. NO.72, 6TH CROSS
2ND MAIN, 3RD BLOCK
D GROUP LAYOUT
HEROHALLI, VIGRO NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560091. 2. MALLAPPA K. KULLOLI
S/O KANTHIRAV KULLOLI
MAJOR
R/O NO.49, RAM MANDIR ROAD
BIJAPUR-586101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY MR. A. HANUMANTHAPPA, ADV., FOR R1 R2 SERVED) - - - THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.6.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3898/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 10TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, (SCCH-16), BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF 8,32,200/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
5 M.F.A. CROB NO.137 OF 2016 IN M.F.A. NO.6649 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SURESH BABU E S/O ESHWAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O NO.72, 6TH CROSS 2ND MAIN, 3RD BLOCK D GROUP LAYOUT, HEROHALLI VIGRO NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 091. .... CROSS OBJECTOR (BY MR. HANUMANTHAPPA .A, ADV.,) AND: 1. MALLAPPA K. KULLOLI
S/O KANTHIRAV KULLOLI, MAJOR
R/O 49, RAM MANDIR ROAD
BIJAPUR-586101. 2. THE CLAIM MANAGER
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLINACE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
PLOT NO.3 AND 5, LS NO.52
WARD NO.16, 1ST FLOOR
FRONT WING, SFL COMPLEX
NEAR ROYAL CIRCLE
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD
BELLARY-583 101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY MR. O. MAHESH, ADV., FOR R2 R1 SERVED) - - - THIS M.F.A. CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., R/W SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AWARDED TO THE CROSS-APPELLANT BY AWARDING FURTHER COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.11,67,800/- IN ADDITION TO THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.8,32,000/- AND INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% AS AGAINST THE 9% PA AWARDED DATED 20.06.2016 PASSED IN
6 MVC NO.3898/2013 BY THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, AT BANGALORE (SCCH-16) IN THE INTEREST AND EQUITY. M.F.A. CROB NO.22 OF 2017 IN M.F.A. NO.6647/2016 BETWEEN: SURESH BABU E S/O ESHWAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O NO.72, 6TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN 3RD BLOCK, D GROUP LAYOUT HEROHALLI, VIGRO NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560091. .... CROSS OBJECTOR (BY MR. HANUMANTHAPPA .A, ADV.,) AND: 1. MALLAPPA K. KULLOLI
S/O KANTHIRAV KULLOLI, MAJOR
R/O 49, RAM MANDIR ROAD
BIJAPUR-586101. 2. THE CLAIM MANAGER
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
PLOT NO.3 AND 5, LS NO.52
WARD NO.16, IST FLOOR
FRONT WING, SFL COMPLEX
NEAR ROYAL CIRCLE
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD
BELLARY-583101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY MR. O. MAHESH, ADV., FOR R2) - - - THIS M.F.A. CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., R/W SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3896/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (SCCH-16), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
7 M.F.A. CROB NO.23 OF 2017 IN M.F.A. NO.6648/2016 BETWEEN: SURESH BABU E S/O ESHWAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O NO.72, 6TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN 3RD BLOCK, D GROUP LAYOUT HEROHALLI, VIGRO NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560091. .... CROSS OBJECTOR (BY MR. HANUMANTHAPPA .A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MALLAPPA K. KULLOLI
S/O KANTHIRAV KULLOLI, MAJOR
R/O 49, RAM MANDIR ROAD
BIJAPUR-586101. 2. THE CLAIM MANAGER
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
PLOT NO.3 AND 5, LS NO.52
WARD NO.16, IST FLOOR
FRONT WING, SFL COMPLEX
NEAR ROYAL CIRCLE
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD
BELLARY-583101. ... RESPONDENTS (BY MR. O. MAHESH, ADV., FOR R2) - - - THIS M.F.A. CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, R/W SEC. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3897/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, (SCCH-16), BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE M.F.As. AND THESE M.F.A CROBS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
8 COMMON JUDGMENT M.F.A.No.6648/2016, M.F.A.No.6647/2016 and M.F.A.No.6649/2016 have been filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short) by the insurance company, whereas, M.F.A.CROB No.137/2016, M.F.A.CROB No.22/2017 and M.F.A.CROB No.23/2017 have been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. Since, all the appeals as well as the cross objections arise out of the same accident and common judgment dated 20.06.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims tribunal' for short), they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The facts leading to filing of these appeals and cross objections briefly stated are that on 12.05.2013 at about 5.45 p.m., the deceased Dr. Ramesh Babu, Dr. Savita Rani E and Sulochana Naik were traveling in a car bearing registration No.KA-02-MG-9419. When they reached near Sanikere Village, Challakere, a lorry bearing registration no.
9 KA-29-B-1042 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-16-R-9757 as well as the car in which the deceased persons were traveling. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased persons sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. 3. The legal representative of the deceased Dr.Ramesh Babu, thereupon filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act namely MVC 3896/2013 claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of accident and was employed as a doctor in Fortis Hospital, Bangalore and was earning a sum of Rs.60,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The legal representative of the deceased Dr.Ramesh Babu claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.97,00,000/- along with interest. 4. The legal representative of the deceased Dr.Savita Rani E, thereupon filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act namely MVC 3897/2013 claiming compensation on
10 the ground that the deceased was aged about 33 years at the time of accident and was employed as a doctor and was earning a sum of Rs.55,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The legal representative of the deceased Dr.Savita Rani E claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.70,00,000/- along with interest. 5. The legal representative of the deceased Sulochana Naik, thereupon filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act namely MVC 3898/2013 claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of accident and was a housewife. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The legal representative of the deceased Sulochana Naik claimed compensation along with interest. 6. The insurer of the lorry (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurance company' for short) filed the written statement in which inter alia the mode and manner of the accident was
11 denied. The involvement of the lorry bearing registration no.KA-28-B-1042 in the accident was also denied. It was further pleaded the claim petitions were not maintainable as the claimant was not dependent on the income of the deceased. It was also pleaded that the claim petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It was pleaded that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the car. It was also pleaded that the driver of the lorry did not hold a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and that the liability of the insurance company, if any, would be subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The ages, avocations and incomes of the deceased persons were also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the legal representative of the deceased is exorbitant and excessive. 7. The Claims Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The claimant in MVC 3896/2013, MVC 3897/2013 and MVC 3898/2013 examined himself as PW1 and exhibited 35 documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P35. The insurance company
12 examined Sandeep as RW1 and adduced documentary evidence namely Ex.R1 to R3. The Claims Tribunal by a common judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. ing lorry bearing registration No.KA01-1A-3510. It was further held that the claimant was entitled to a compensation of Rs.26,85,000/-, Rs.17,25,000/- and Rs.8,32,200/- in MVC 3896/2013, MVC 3897/2013 and MVC 3898/2013 respectively along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In the aforesaid factual background, these appeals as well as cross objections have been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal erred in not attributing negligence in causing the accident on the part of the rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the car. In this connection, learned counsel for the insurance company has invited our attention to Ex.P4 and Ex.R3 Spot Sketch as well as Ex.P1 FIR and Ex.P2 Complaint to prove that the accident was caused to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle who darted from the service station towards the main road
13 without any indication as well as the negligence of the driver of the car who could have avoided the accident if he were to be careful. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.25,60,000/-, Rs.16,00,000/- and Rs.6,07,200/- under the head 'loss of estate' in MVC 3896/2013, MVC 3897/2013 and MVC 3898/2013 respectively in the absence of any evidence on record to indicate the savings made by the deceased to the estate of the deceased. It is also submitted that the claimant is entitled only to a conventional figure of compensation towards 'loss of estate' in the absence of proof of alleged dependency. It is also urged that the amount of compensation awarded under the head 'loss of love and affection' as well as the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the higher side. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the cross objectors has invited our attention to paragraph 22, 23 and 24 of the judgment of the Tribunal and has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred wholly on account of negligence of the driver of the lorry. It
14 is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of deceased Dr.Savita Rani E at Rs.25,000/- as she was a post graduate student who was pursuing her Masters Degree in Dental Sciences at RV Dental College, Bangalore as evident from Ex.P27. It is also submitted that Tribunal in all the claim petitions, erred in deducting 50% from the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses instead of 1/3rd. 10. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in ‘MANGALA RAM VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.’, (2018) 5 SCC 656 has held that the proceeding under the Act has to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and claimant is not required to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled in law that when an accident happens through the combined negligence of two persons, he alone is liable to the other who had the last opportunity of avoiding the accident by reasonable care, and who then knew or ought to have known of the danger caused by the other’s negligence. [See:
15 SALAMOND ON THE LAW OF TORTS, TWELFTH EDITION 1957 PAGE 439-441]. The general rule is that the vehicle should be driven at a speed which enables the driver to stop within the limits of his vision and failure to do this will almost always result in the driver being held, in whole or in part, responsible for the collision. [See: CLERK AND LINDSELL ON TORTS, ELEVENTH EDITION, 1954 PAGES 368-370]. It is equally well settled legal proposition that burden of proving negligence lies on the person who alleges it. The Supreme Court in ‘MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. LAKSHMAN IYER AND ORS.’ AIR 2003 SC 4182 held that the crucial question in case of contributory negligence is whether either party could by reasonable care, have avoided the consequences of other’s negligence. The finding with regard to contributory negligence has to be recorded on the basis of proper consideration of the pleadings and legal evidence adduced by both the parties and the same cannot be based merely on police records. [See: ‘MINUROUT VS. SATYA PRADYUMNA MOHAPATRA’, (2013) 10 SCC 695 AND ‘SARALA DEVI VS. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
16 INSURANCE CO. LTD.,’, (2014) 15 SCC 450]. It is well settled in law that burden to prove breach of duty on the part of the victim lies on the insurance company and the insurance company has to discharge the burden. [SEE: ‘USHA RAJ KHOWA VS. PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIES’, (2009) 14 SCC 71]. The Supreme Court in ’JIJU KURUVILA AND ORS. VS. KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN AND ORS.’, (2013) 9 SCC 166 has held that mere position of the vehicles after the accident as shown in scene mahazar cannot be a substantial proof as to rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction etc. depends on the number of factors like speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner, in which the accident caused, but in absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the court
17 cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual. 11. In the light of aforesaid well settled legal principles we may advert to the facts of the case. From perusal of the evidence on record, it is evident that PW1 Suresh Babu is not an eye witness to the accident. The claimant in order to prove his case has produced Ex.P1 FIR, Ex.P2 Complaint and Ex.P10 Chargesheet which have been filed against the driver of the lorry. Ex.P4 Spot sketch and Ex.P5 Spot Mahazhar indicate that the accident occurred at the center of a 28 feet wide road. Ex.P3 IMV Report discloses that the car as well as the lorry have suffered extensive damage to the front as well as the right portion while the motorcycle has suffered damage to the front side. From the aforesaid evidence an inference can be drawn with regard to the manner of accident. The version put forth by the claimant with regard to the manner of accident appears to be more probable. It pertinent to note here that the fact that the lorry hit the motorcycle which was proceeding from the petrol bunk towards the road prior to dashing against the car is not
18 disputed. The insurance company has not examined the driver of the lorry or any other independent witness to prove the manner of accident as alleged by it. A finding of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car or rider of the motorcycle cannot be recorded solely on the basis on Spot Sketch as the same is not substantive proof of negligence of any party in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in JIJA KURUVILA SUPRA. The Tribunal, therefore, on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on record and on the basis of preponderance of probabilities has recorded a finding that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver due to which the deceased persons sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal with regard to negligence. 12. The Supreme Court in 'NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. BIRENDER', 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 28 it has been held that the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to make an application for
19 compensation in view of Section 166(1)(c) of the Act. It has further been held that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being the legal representatives have the right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. Therefore, the contention raised by the insurance company that the claimant is not entitled to compensation in MVC 3896/2013, MVC 3897/2013 and MVC 3898/2013 under the head 'loss of dependency' does not deserve acceptance. 13. Now we may advert to the issue of quantum of compensation in M.V.C.No.3896/2013.The deceased at the time of the accident was aged about 32 years and was employed as a Doctor in Orthopedic Department of Fortis Hospital, Bangalore. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the salary of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- per month on the basis of Ex.P16 Provisional Certificate, Ex.P17 Appointment Letter and Ex.P18 Salary Certificate. Out of the salary of the deceased an amount of Rs.4,000/- has to be deducted on
20 account income tax which is evident from Ex.P18 Salary Certificate. Therefore, the monthly salary of the deceased is assessed at Rs.36,000/-. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% of the amount has to be added on account of future prospects as the deceased was in private employment where tenure of job is not assured as evident from Ex.P17 Appointment Letter. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.50,400/-. Since, deceased is a bachelor, therefore, half of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (2009) 6 SCC 121 and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.25,200/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 32 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘16’ has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to (Rs.25,200x12x16) i.e., Rs.48,38,400/- on account of loss of dependency.
21 14. In view of laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & ORS.’ (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in ‘UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.’ IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 DECIDED ON 30.06.2020 each of the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss love and affection. In addition, claimant is held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimant is held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.49,08,400/-. 15. Now we may advert to the issue of quantum of compensation in M.V.C.No.3897/2013. The Supreme Court in ASHVINBHAI JAYANTILAL MODI VS. RAMKARAN RAMCHANDRA SHARMA AND ANOTHER (2015) 2 SCC 180. has assessed the income of student of first year MBBS course at Rs.25,000/- per month and has held that there is a tremendous increase in demand for medical professionals and that medical practice is one of the most
22 rewarding profession today. Therefore, taking into consideration the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court as well as the fact that the deceased was a post graduate student of Dental Sciences at RV Dental College Bangalore, as evident from Ex.P26 Marks cards and Ex.P30 Fees Receipts, we deem it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per month. 16. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% of the amount has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.35,000/-. Since, deceased is a spinster, therefore, half of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (2009) 6 SCC 121 and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.17,500/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 34 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘16’ has to be adopted.
23 Therefore, the claimant is held entitled to (Rs.17,500x12x16) i.e., Rs.33,60,000/- on account of loss of dependency. 17. In view of laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & ORS.’ (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in ‘UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.’ IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 DECIDED ON 30.06.2020 each of the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss love and affection. In addition, claimant is held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimant is held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.34,30,000/-. 18. Now we may advert to the issue of quantum of compensation in M.V.C.No.3898/2013. Admittedly, the claimant has not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased is assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. Since the accident is of
24 the year 2013, the notional income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.8,000/- per month. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in ‘NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’ AIR 2017 SC 5157, 10% of the amount has to be added on account of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.8,800/-. Since, number of dependants is one, therefore, half of the amount has to be deducted towards personal and therefore, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.4,400/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 53 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of ‘11’ has to be adopted. Therefore, the claimant is held entitled to (Rs.4,400x12x11) i.e., Rs.5,80,800/- on account of loss of dependency. 19. In view of laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & ORS.’ (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in ‘UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.’ IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 DECIDED ON
25 30.06.2020 each of the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss love and affection. In addition, claimant is held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimant is held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,50,800/-. 20. Since the accident is of the year 2013, the prevailing rate of interest for the year 2013 in respect of fixed deposits for one year in nationalized banks being 8%, the aforesaid amounts of compensation in MVC 3896/2013, MVC 3897/2013 and MVC 3898/2013 shall carry interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount of compensation. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal in MVC 3896/2013, MVC 3897/2013 and MVC 3898/2013 is modified. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the tribunal for disbursement.
26 In the result, the appeals as well as cross objections are disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV