Karnataka High Court
Prakash Shetty vs Indira M Naik on 31 July, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30315
MFA No. 670 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 670 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. PRAKASH SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE GOPALA SHETTY,
2. ANASOOYA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
W/O PRAKASH SHETTY,
3. MASTER PRAKHYATH SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
4. KUMARI PRATHEEKA,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,
APPELLANT NO.3 AND 4 ARE MINORS
Digitally REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND/
signed by MOTHER ANASOOYA SHETTY.
YAMUNA K L
Location: ALL ARE RESIDING AT 3-79,
High Court of
Karnataka KAMBALAKODI HOUSE,
KALLYA POST AND VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK - 574 104.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI AKSHAYA K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. INDIRA M. NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30315
MFA No. 670 of 2021
W/O MAHABALESHWARA NAIK,
R/AT 'SATVIK', KUNTALPADI,
KARKALA KASBA VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK - 574 104.
2. N. MAHABALESHWARA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O B.R. NAIK,
R/AT 'SATVIK', KUNTALPADI,
KARKALA KASBA VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK - 574 104.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
LIBERTY GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
POLICY SERVICING OFFICE: 4-1-85/21,
SHOP NO.203 AND 4-1-85/25,
SHOP NO.207, 2 ND FLOOR,
INLAND AVENUE, M.G.ROAD,
KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE - 575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 AND R2 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 22.11.2023)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.296/2019 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT,
KARKALA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellants-claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 22.10.2019 -3- NC: 2024:KHC:30315 MFA No. 670 of 2021 passed in MVC.No.296/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Karkala (for short 'the tribunal'). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed before the Court.
4. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.15,49,800/- with interest at 8% per annum and directed the respondent - Insurance Company to pay the compensation.
5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the compensation awarded under different heads is not in accordance with the material on record. The Tribunal has failed to award loss of consortium to the appellants and -4- NC: 2024:KHC:30315 MFA No. 670 of 2021 the same may be awarded. Therefore, he seeks to allow the appeal and consequently enhance the compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent - Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under all heads, in accordance with the material evidence, both oral and documentary and the same does not call for interference.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the claimants have produced the documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P25, out of which Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 are the police records, which clearly depict registration of the FIR and filing of the charge sheet against driver of the offending car and same has not been challenged or controverted. Therefore, the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:30315 MFA No. 670 of 2021 Tribunal rightly attributed the negligence against driver of the offending car.
9. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income of the deceased, no material is placed before the Court with regard to proof of income. In the absence of the same, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.9,000/- per month, whereas the Legal Services Authority chart prescribes the notional income of Rs.12,500/- per month for the accident of the year 2018. Accordingly, Rs.12,500/- is taken as income in the present case. The Tribunal rightly added 40% towards future prospects and deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses, which does not call for interference. The deceased was aged 22 years as on the date of accident and the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at '18', which does not call for interference. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.18,90,000/- (Rs.12,500/- + 40% = Rs.17,500/- - -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:30315 MFA No. 670 of 2021 50% = Rs.8750/- x 12 x 18) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.13,60,800/- awarded by the tribunal.
10. Towards medical expenses, Rs.58,998/- is awarded by the Tribunal on the basis of actual bills produced by the claimants, which does not call for interference and the same is retained.
11. The tribunal awarded Rs.80,000/- towards love and affection. As there are four dependents, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases
680. Therefore, under the head loss of consortium, the claimants are entitled for Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x
4) along with 10% escalation towards three block period, which would be Rs.1,76,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- + 10%).
12. The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and -7- NC: 2024:KHC:30315 MFA No. 670 of 2021 Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance, which are on the higher side. This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, in all, Rs.30,000/- is awarded. However, as per the aforesaid decision, 10% escalation for one block period on the same is awarded under this head, which would come to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 10%).
13. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.21,57,998/- as against Rs.15,49,800/- awarded by the Tribunal, as mentioned in the table below:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency 18,90,000-00
Loss of consortium 1,76,000-00
Loss of estate and funeral expenses 33,000-00
Medical treatment of deceased 58,998-00
TOTAL 21,57,998-00
14. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. -8-
NC: 2024:KHC:30315 MFA No. 670 of 2021
ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.296/2019, is modified.
iii) The appellants/claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.21,57,998/- as against Rs.15,49,800/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at 8% per annum.
iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest at 6% per annum by the respondent - Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellants-claimants as per the terms of the Tribunal by Electronic transfer to the claimants upon furnishing the required Bank details/upon proper identification.
vi) The enhanced compensation would be Rs.6,08,198/-. Out of the said enhanced amount, the Tribunal shall disburse Rs.2,08,198/- in favour of claimant No.1- father, Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of claimant No.2-mother, Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of claimant No.3-brother and Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of claimant No.4-sister.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:30315 MFA No. 670 of 2021
vii) The amount so awarded to the minor shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank as ordered by the Tribunal.
viii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the Tribunal shall stand intact.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN CT: BHK