Karnataka High Court
Kumara vs Omkareshwara on 2 July, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB
MFA No. 1016 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1016 OF 2022(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. KUMARA
S/O. LATE DODDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
2. MEGHANA K.,
D/O. KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NISARGA NILAYA,
RAJA KEMPEGOWDA EXTENSION,
CANAL ROAD, CHANNAPATNA
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA PARVEEN PERMANANT ADDRESS:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BYRAPATNA VILLGE
KARNATAKA MALUR HOBLI,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. OMKARESHWARA,
S/O GANGADHARAIAH,
MAJOR BY AGE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB
MFA No. 1016 of 2022
RESIDING AT NO. 23,
3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN
JNANAJYOTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560056.
2. THE UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
6TH FLOOR,KRUSHI BHVANA
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VC);
R1- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH
V/O. DATED 11.02.2022)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2021 PASSED IN
MVC NO.457/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATNA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATION, THIS DAY,
DR. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Channapatna, in MVC No.457/2017 dated 01.09.2021.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB MFA No. 1016 of 2022
2. Heard Sri.Gopal Krishna N., learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri.Mohan Kumar T., learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.
3. On the ground that the son of appellant No.1 died in a road traffic accident and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondent No.1, the appellants moved an application claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.18,23,200/- as compensation. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded as compensation, the present appeal is preferred.
4. The matrix of the case as could be perceived from the material available on record is that on 03.09.2017 at about 7.30 p.m. while the deceased Shashank was proceeding on the motor cycle as a the pillion rider, the rider being one Manoj R. towards Honganooru from Channapatna, when they were near Neelakantanahalli Cross, Channapatna-Sathanoor road, an Indica Car bearing Registration No.KA.41 N.7862 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle, due to which Manoj R. and Shashank -4- NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB MFA No. 1016 of 2022 K. fell down. Shashank died on the spot due to injuries to his head and Monoj R. lost his life during the course of treatment. The first appellant is the father of the deceased Shashank and second appellant is his sister. Mother i.e., claimant No.2 died during the course of proceedings before the Tribunal.
5. As per the version of the appellants, the deceased Shashank was studying 4th year B.E. at Dayananda Sagar College and further by giving tuition to students he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal which dealt with the matter, took the notional income of the deceased Shashank as Rs.11,000/- per month. Sri.Gopala Krishna who argued the matter representing the appellants contends that the deceased Shashank would have completed his B.E. Degree very soon and might have earned lot of amount and would have contributed the same towards the welfare of the appellants. Learned counsel states that the Tribunal therefore erred in taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.11,000/- per month. The learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of compensation by increasing the notional income of the deceased Shashank.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB MFA No. 1016 of 2022
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that no proof is produced with regard to the actual earnings of the deceased Shashank by giving tuitions. Learned counsel also states that even the deceased Shashank has not completed his B.E. Degree and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly took the notional income of Rs.11,000/- per month.
Though the learned counsel for the second respondent has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narmadi Bai Vs. Triupati Arolu and others reported in 2023 ACJ 1207 and contended that the notional income has to be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, in the said case, the Court dealt with a matter where the accident occurred in the year 2010. In the case on hand the accident occurred in the year 2017. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is more appropriate.
7. It is not in dispute that the deceased Shashank was pursuing his B.E. Degree course by the date of accident. Exs.P22 and P23 establishes the said fact. However, it is very difficult to estimate in exact terms the earnings of the deceased Shashank has he been alive. Learned counsel for the appellants -6- NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB MFA No. 1016 of 2022 during the course of his arguments relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basanti Devi Vs. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in LAWS(SC)-2021-12-119 submits that taking the notional income at Rs.11,000/- per month is erroneous. In the said case, dealing with a situation where a bachelor of engineering in computer technology died in a road traffic accident, the Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed the action of the Tribunal in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- per month. The Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 5 of the judgment held as follows:-
"5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective sides and considering the fact that the deceased at the time of death/accident was aged 25 years of age and was a Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Technology, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal rightly considered the income of the deceased at the time of death at least @ 20,000/- p.m. The same was not required to be interfered with by the High Court. The submission on behalf of the respondent- Insurance Company that as no documentary evidence was produced and/or laid in support of the documentary evidence produced on record that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000 per month and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000.00 per month is concerned, assuming that there was no supporting evidence laid, in that case also -7- NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB MFA No. 1016 of 2022 considering the potentially to earn, as the deceased was a Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Technology, his income can safely be assessed at least at Rs. 20,000.00 per month. As such we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. The High Court has committed a grave error in reducing the compensation from Rs.30,54,000.00 ( Rs. 30,04,000.00) to Rs. 15,82,000.00."
8. In the light of the aforementioned decision which aptly applies to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court considers desirable to take the notional income of the deceased Shashank as Rs.20,000/- per month.
9. It is not in dispute that the deceased Shashank died at the age of 22 years. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case is '18'. Further, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case, 40% of the actual earnings is required to be added towards future prospects. Taking the aforementioned parameters, the loss of dependency if calculated would be as under:
Description Amount
Rs.
Annual income (20,000x12)
2,40,000.00
Add 40% towards future
3,36,000.00
prospects (2,40,000+40%)
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB
MFA No. 1016 of 2022
Deducting 50% of the
actual earnings towards
1,68,000.00
personal and living
expenses (3,36,000 - 50%)
Applying the relevant
30,24,000.00
multiplier '18' (1,68,000x18)
Loss of dependency 30,24,000.00
Together with the said amount, the appellants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The first appellant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. Thus, the compensation which the appellants are entitled to is as under:
Sl. Description Amount
No. Rs.
1 Loss of dependency
30,24,000.00
2 Funeral expenses 15,000.00
3 Loss of estate
15,000.00
4 Filial consortium to first
appellant 40,000.00
Total Compensation 30,94,000.00
10. The Tribunal through the impugned order has awarded a sum of Rs.18,23,200/- as compensation. Thus, the enhancement would be to a tune of Rs.12,70,800/-. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB MFA No. 1016 of 2022
11. In the light of the foregoing discussion the following ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation granted by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Channapatna, through orders in MVC No.457/2017 dated 01.09.2021 is enhanced by Rs.12,70,800/-.
(iii) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
(iv) The second respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(v) The apportionment made by the Tribunal remains undisturbed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE AP CT:TSM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31