Mr Lingappa Naika @ Lingappa vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 5218 Kant

                               1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

               M.F.A. NO.6938 OF 2017 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

1.     MR. LINGAPPA NAIKA @ LINGAPPA,
       S/O KUNJHAPPA,
       AGED 52 YEARS.

2.     SMT. REVATHI,
       W/O MR. LINGAPPA NAIKA @ LINGAPPA,
       AGED 47 YEARS.

3.     HARIPRASAD M.,
       W/O MR. LINGAPPA NAIKA @ LINGAPPA,
       AGED 30 YEARS.

       ALL ARE RESIDING AT
       MALETHODI HOUSE,
       PERLAMPADI POST,
       KOLTHIGE VILLAGE,
       PUTTUR TALUK,
       PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
       OM NIVAS, URWA STORE,
       MANGALURU.
                                            ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.GURUPRASAD B.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       RAM BHAVAN COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR,
                                   2


     KODIALBAIL - 575 003
     MANGALURU TALUK
     REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

2.   MR. MOHAMMED HANEEF,
     S/O HUSSAINAR, ADULT,
     R/AT D.NO.8/159,
     NAVOOR ROAD, NAVOOR,
     SULLIA TALUK, D.K.
                                                   ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED 13.03.2018)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:22.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.695/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER-MACT AND II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, D.K., PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

    THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

The appellants/claimants are before this Court seeking

enhancement of compensation.

2. The appellants filed claim petition for having lost

one Pradeep in a road traffic accident dated 28.04.2016. The

appellant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. The

Tribunal having appreciated the oral and documentary

evidence was of the view that the appellants have not placed

on record any documentary evidence to indicate that deceased

was earning Rs.1,000/- per day. In absence of income proof,

the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased notionally at

Rs.6,000/- and by deducting 50% towards personal expenses

since deceased was a bachelor and by applying multiplier of

18, has awarded a sum of Rs.6,48,000/- under the head of

loss of dependency. Under conventional heads, a sum of

Rs.1,25,000/- is awarded. The Tribunal, in all, has awarded a

sum of Rs.7,73,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the

appellants are before this Court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and

learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Insurance Company.

4. On re-appreciation of the oral and documentary

evidence, though this Court cannot find fault with the finding

of the Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased

notionally for want of income proof, however, having regard to

the date of accident, this Court would find that the income

assessed notionally by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower

side. Having regard to the date of accident which is dated

28.04.2016, by placing reliance on the chart issued by the

legal services authority, the income of the deceased is

notionally assessed at Rs.9,500/- and by adding 40% towards

future prospects, the income is taken at Rs.13,300/-. After

deducting 50% towards personal expenses, the income is

assessed at Rs.6,650/- and by applying the multiplier of 18,

the compensation payable under the head 'loss of dependency'

works out to Rs.14,36,400/- (6,650x12x18).

5. On perusal of the records, this Court is of the view

that only appellant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for 'filial

consortium'. In terms of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.

Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors.1, a sum of

Rs.1,10,000/- is awarded under conventional heads. Hence,

2018 (9) SC 51

the total compensation re-determined by this Court works out

to Rs.15,46,400/- as against Rs.7,73,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The

judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified. The

appellants are held entitled to enhanced compensation of

Rs.7,73,400/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of petition till realisation.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CA