Ningappa Sukru Gouda vs Smt. Leela B Gadad
2021 Latest Caselaw 6068 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 14 T H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI


               M.F.A.No.23403/2010 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1.    SRI NINGAPPA SUKRU GOUDA ,
      S/O SUKRU GOUD A,
      AGE: ABOUT 36 YEARS,
      OCC: COOLI E.

2.    SMT.DURGI NIN GA PPA GOUDA ,
      W/O NINGA PPA GOUDA,
      AGE: ABOUT 34 YEARS,

      BOTH ARE R/ O HONALLI,
      POST: A GASUR, A NKOLA TALUK,
      NOW AT T ODUR, K ARWAR
      UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
                                        ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI GIRIS H A .YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI V .P.KULKARN I, ADV OCATE)

AND

1.    SMT.LEELA B.GAD AD,
      REGD.OWNER OF T RUCK BEARING
      REGN.N O.KA- 25/C-399,
      R/O H.NO.162, SA HADEV NAGAR,
      OPPOSITE MURDESHWAR CERAMIC LTD.,
      HUBBALLI-580 059,
      DHARWAD DISTRICT.

2.    THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
      RELIANCE GEN ERA L INSURAN CE CO.LTD.,
                                     2




        CTS NO.472/474,
        V.A.KA LBURGI S QUARE,
        DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR,
        HUBBALLI-580 059,
        DHARWAD DISTRICT.
                                         ... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN N .NEERALAGI AND
 SRI K .S.PATIL, A DVOCATE FOR R1;
 SRI NAGA RAJ C.K OLLOORI , ADV OCA TE FOR R2)

     THIS MISC.FIRST APPEAL IS FI LED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES A CT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND A WARD DATED 16.04.2010 PA SSED IN MVC
NO.118/ 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.M.A .C.T.,
KARWAR, PARTLY ALLOWIN G THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION     AND   SEEKING     ENHANCEMEN T  OF
COMPENSATION .

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT , DELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:

                              JUDGMENT

Challenging the judgment and award dated

16.04.2010 passed by I Addl.M.A.C.T., Karwar (for

short, 'tribunal') in MVC No.118/2009, this appeal is

filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of

compensation.

2. Sri Girish A.Yadawad, advocate appearing for

Sri V.P.Kulkarni, learned counsel for appellants-

claimants submitted that in an accident that occurred

on 10.02.2009 when Krishna Ningappa Gouda was

riding his bicycle, a truck bearing registration no.KA-

25/C-399 driven by its driver dashed against bicycle.

In the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and was

admitted to hospital for treatment. However, he died

during treatment. Claiming compensation for untimely

death, his parents filed claim petition under Section

166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'M.V.Act')

against owner and insurer of lorry.

3. On contest, insurer opposed claim petition on

all grounds including violation of terms and conditions

of policy, tribunal held that accident occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver. It

determined that deceased was a PUC II year student,

his monthly income at Rs.3,000/- and applying

multiplier corresponding to the younger parent

awarded Rs.2,88,000/- towards loss of dependency,

Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.16,000/-

under conventional heads. Learned counsel submitted

that tribunal erred in taking meager monthly income

for determination of compensation. It was submitted

that multiplier applied was erroneous and even future

prospects were not added. Apart from above, it is

submitted that award towards conventional head

require enhancement.

4. On the other hand, Sri Nagaraj C.Kolloori,

learned counsel for respondent-insurer supported the

award and opposed enhancement. It was submitted

that there was no evidence regarding age of deceased

and therefore tribunal would not be justified in taking

notional income of Rs.3,000/-. Infact, tribunal ought to

have taken notional annual income in case of children

that is not more than Rs.30,000/- per annum and

therefore the award was justified.

5. From above submission, occurrence of

accident leading to death of Krishna is not in dispute.

The only dispute is regarding age of deceased.

Claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation. Therefore, point that arises for

consideration in this appeal is:

"Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement as sought for?"

6. In order to establish age, occupation and

income, claimants have produced postmortem report

and sports certificates. From Ex.P4, age of deceased is

mentioned as 18 years. From Ex.P10-sports certificate,

it is seen that deceased was a PUC-II student and had

earned many awards in sports. From above, age of

deceased would be 18 years and his occupation as

student is established. Tribunal assessed his income on

notional basis at Rs.3,000/- per month. The notional

income of an ordinary coolie for the year 2009 i.e. the

date of accident is Rs.5,000/-. As deceased was a PUC

II student, it would be appropriate to take his monthly

income as Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.3,000/-. Claimants

are parents. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of National Insurance Company Limited

V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 6

SCC 680, 40% has to be added towards income of

deceased towards future prospects, deduction towards

personal expenses would be '½' and multiplier

applicable would be '18'. Therefore, compensation

towards loss of dependency would be Rs.5,000 + 40% -

1/2 x 12 x 18 = Rs.7,56,000/-.

7. It is established that Krishna died during

treatment. Claimants produced 52 medical bills at

Ex.P8. Tribunal determined total to be Rs.1,08,000/-,

but it has awarded only Rs.60,000/- towards medical

expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance and

Rs.1,000/- towards attendant charges. Denial of

compensation for amount mentioned in medical bills

would not be appropriate, as they are established by

production of bills. Thus, claimants would be entitled

to Rs.1,08,000/-. Claimants would also be entitled to a

sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial

consortium. They would be entitled to further sum of

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/-

towards loss of estate. Since more than three years

have lapsed after rendering the decision in Pranay

Sethi (supra), 10% has to be added to award under

conventional heads i.e., a sum of Rs.11,000/- i.e.

claimants would be entitled for total compensation

under conventional heads at Rs.1,21,000/-. Thus, total

compensation would be Rs.11,01,000/- as against

Rs.3,64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly

point for consideration is answered partly in the

affirmative as above.

8. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in part with cost.

ii) The claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.11,01,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

ii) The direction issued by the tribunal towards apportionment and deposit would apply to the reassessed compensation on proportionate terms.

iv) The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CLK