1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
MFA NO.215 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. N. KRISHNA NAIKA
S/O B. N. NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/O YEMMERAHALLI THANDA
SIRA TALUK - 572 135
2. KUMARI AKHILA
D/O N. KRISHNA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
3. KUMARI POORNIMA
D/O N.KRISHNA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS
4. SANGEETHA
D/O N. KRISHNA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS
5. MALE BOY (NOT NAMED)
8 MONTHS OLD BABY
PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 5 ARE MINORS
REP. BY 1ST APPELLANT
N. KRISHNA NAIKA
ALL ARE R/AT
YEMMERAHALLI THANDA
SIRA TALUK - 572 135 ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K., ADV.)
2
AND:
1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
STATE HIGHWAY
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
K.R.CIRCLE
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA
GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPT.
MOTOR BRANCH, K.G.I.D.
BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ROOPA, HCGP)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 27.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.783/2013
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
MACT, SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.03.2015 passed in MVC No.783/2013 by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sira (for short 'the Tribunal'), the petitioners therein have preferred this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.05.2013, at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased Jayamma was crossing the road in front of Jaihind Hotel on Tumkur-Sira NH-4 road, at that time, the driver of Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.KA-42/G-632 came from Tumkur side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, she suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot.
4. Petitioner no.1 is her husband and petitioner nos.2 to 5 are her children. Respondent no.1 is the owner of the bolero vehicle and respondent no.2 is the insurer. The petitioners preferred MVC No.783/2013 before the Tribunal.
5. The petitioners got examined two witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. The respondents have not examined any witness nor got marked any documents. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,35,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this appeal. 4
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. The factum of accident and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is the quantum of compensation.
8. The accident happened in the year 2013. The deceased was aged 30 years at the time of the accident. No evidence is adduced in support of her income. The Tribunal has taken her income at Rs.4,500/- per month. We find it to be on the lower side. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in consultation with Insurance Companies, the notional income to be adopted for the year 2013 is Rs.8,000/- per month. The age of the deceased being 30 years, the multiplier to be adopted is 17. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], 40% has to be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects. As there have been 5 dependents, 1/4th of the income of the deceased is deducted towards personal expenses. 5 Thus, on the count of loss of dependency, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.17,13,600/- [Rs.8000/- + 40% X 12 X 17 X 3/4].
9. Further, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Somwati [(2020)9 SCC 644]. Thus, together they are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, they are entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.19,43,600/- as against Rs.7,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. Hence, the following:
ORDER i] Appeal is allowed in part.
ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.19,43,600/- as against Rs.7,35,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from 6 the date of the claim petition till its realization. However, denying the interest for the period of 922 days delay in filing the appeal in terms of the order dated 13.11.2020.
iii] Respondent No.2 shall deposit the re-assessed total compensation determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.
iv] The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact. v] The modified compensation shall be disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal. vi] Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE hkh.