Karnataka High Court
Smt Shashikala vs M Sathyanarayana on 29 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29802
MFA No. 4917 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4917 OF 2015(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHASHIKALA
W/O LATE MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2. BIJRESH,
S/O LATE MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
3. M. DEEPAK
S/O LATE MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.7,
HULIMAVU, OLD NO.185,
Digitally signed by NEAR SRIRAM TEMPLE,
PRAJWAL A BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
Location: HIGH COURT BANGALORE-560 076
OF KARNATAKA
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SUNITHA B.H., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAJANNA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M. SATHYANARAYANA
S/O KRISHNA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT NO.140, AKSHAYA NIVAS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29802
MFA No. 4917 of 2015
2ND MAIN ROAD,
PANDURANGA NAGARA,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N BALARAM, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.5566/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-4, BANGALORE,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. In this appeal, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and award dated 07.04.2015 passed in M.V.C.No.5566/2013 on the file of the MACT, Bangalore ('the Tribunal' for short).
2. The appellants were the petitioners and respondents were the respondents before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29802 MFA No. 4917 of 2015
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 01.10.2012 at 11.45 p.m. one Manjunath, the deceased, the husband of the 1 st petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3 was riding the Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA-51-Q-2674 from Devarachikkanahalli to Hulimavu, hit by the Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-N-9616, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries. He was treated at Fortis Hospital from 01.10.2012 to 04.10.2012 and then at NIMHANS, Bengaluru, later he succumbed to death in the Hospital. The petitioners approached the Tribunal seeking compensation, claim was opposed by the respondent, the Tribunal by taking evidence and on hearing both the parties by impugned judgment awarded the following compensation:-
a. Loss of dependency Rs.4,86,000/- b. Transportation of dead body Rs. 10,000/-
and funeral expenses c. Loss of consortium to the 1st Rs. 20,000/-
petitioner
d. Loss of estate Rs. 20,000/-
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:29802
MFA No. 4917 of 2015
e. Cost of medical treatment of Rs.1,01,430/-
Manjunath before his death
TOTAL Rs.6,37,430/-
Pleading inadequacy and seeking enhancement of
compensation, the petitioners have filed this appeal on various grounds.
4. Heard Smt. Sunitha B.H., learned counsel for Sri Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri N Balaram, learned counsel for the vehicle.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the deceased Manjunath was doing Real Estate and allied business and earning Rs.60,000/- to 75,000/- per month, at the time of accident. The deceased was aged 56 years having three dependents. Two sons are the students, who were studying at the time of accident.
Though income tax returns were furnished to show the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side and sought for enhancement.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:29802 MFA No. 4917 of 2015
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the owner of the car has contended that, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Car, complete negligence was on the part of the rider of the motor cycle, and he has no liability to pay any compensation. It is further contended that the compensation awarded is excess.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.
8. The accident in question involving Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA-51-Q-2674 and Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-N-9616, is not in dispute. The deceased Manjunath was the rider of the Motor Cycle and the car was not covered with valid insurance. The contention of the owner of the car that negligence is on the part of the deceased is not substantiated by placing any evidence on record. No eye witnesses are examined -6- NC: 2024:KHC:29802 MFA No. 4917 of 2015 explaining even the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
9. The Tribunal has rightly held that negligence is on the part of the car driver, as he was prosecuted by the Police for the offence under Section 279 and 304A of IPC as indicated in the charge sheet. The 1st petitioner being the wife and petitioners 2 and 3 though they are major sons, they are the students and dependents. Accident is of the year 2012. Though the petitioners have produced the income tax returns, the petitioners failed to produce any income tax returns post the death of the deceased. The Tribunal has considered the deceased as a person with no proof of income, taken notional income at Rs.6000/-, which is on the lower side. A person with no proof of income would earn Rs.7,000/- in the year 2012. Hence notional income of the deceased is taken at Rs.7,000/-.
10. In a case of this nature, assessment of compensation is guided by the Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. PRANAY SETHI AND -7- NC: 2024:KHC:29802 MFA No. 4917 of 2015 OTHERS, reported in (2017) 16 SUPREME COURT CASES 680 and SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 121.
11. There are three dependents, hence 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses. The post mortem report shows that the deceased was aged 56 years, the applicable multiplier is '9'. For the age above 50 years the future prospects will be 10%. Hence the loss of dependency would come to :-
Rs.7,000/- + Rs.700/- (10%) = Rs.7,700/- - Rs.2,566 (1/3rd) = Rs.5,134/- x 12 x 9 = Rs.5,54,472/-
12. The records shows that deceased was admitted to Fortis Hospital and then at NIMHANS. He was hospitalized for five days. Medical bills constitute Rs.1,01,430/- the same is awarded by the Tribunal, that has to be taken note of and kept intact.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:29802 MFA No. 4917 of 2015
13. Under conventional heads Rs.15,000/- each is assessed towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Loss of consortium to wife and loss of filial love to the children Rs.40,000/- each is to be awarded. Since the accident is of the year 2012, in view of PRANAY SETHI's case cited supra 10% appreciation on conventional heads is to be considered at Rs.15,000/-. Hence the petitioners are entitled to compensation as follows:-
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 5,54,472/-
2. Loss of consortium (wife and two Rs. 1,20,000/-
sons)
3. Towards Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
5. 10% appreciation on Rs. 15,000/-
conventional heads TOTAL Rs.7,19,472/-
Less compensation Rs. 6,37,430/-
awarded by the Tribunal
Enhanced compensation Rs. 82,042/-
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:29802
MFA No. 4917 of 2015
14. It is the just compensation the petitioners are entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence appeal merits consideration, in the result, the following :-
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award is modified.
(iii) The petitioners would be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.82,042/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit.
(iv) The owner of the car has to pay the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.
(v) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal along with records.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35