Karnataka High Court

Sri Renukappa vs M/S Durgamba Motors on 23 December, 2021

Bench: S. Sujatha, E.S.Indiresh

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                         PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                           AND

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

        R.P.No.369/2021 IN M.F.A.No.766/2017 (MV)


BETWEEN :

1.      SRI RENUKAPPA
        S/O RAJANNA,
        AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

2.      SMT.KAMALAMMA
        W/O LAKSHMAIAH
        AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

        BOTH ARE R/AT HULIKAL VILLAGE,
        HULIKAL POST, MAGADI TALUK,
        RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 561 101        ...PETITIONERS

            (BY SRI PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADV.)


AND :

1.      M/s DURGAMBA MOTORS
        CHIKAJANE MANDIRA STREET
        SARJAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK
        BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562125
        (RC OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING
        REG. NO.KA-51-B-3342)

2.      THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
        REGIONAL OFFICE,
                        -2-

     JAYADEVA HOSTEL BUILG,
     B.H.ROAD, TIPTUR, 9/2,
     MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS,
     M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001,
     (POLICY NO.67220131120100011144
     VALID FROM 30.03.2013 TO 29.03.2014)

3.   REKHA
     W/O LATE GANGADHARA
     AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
     R/AT HULIKAL VILALGE
     6TH STREET, HULIKAL POST
     MAGADI TALUK
     RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-561101

4.   CHI. PRAMOD
     S/O REKHA @ REKHA H.R., MINOR,
     R/AT HULIKAL VILLAGE, 6TH STREET,
     HULIKAL POST, MAGADI TALUK,
     RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561 101
     REP BY MINOR GUARDIAN & NATURAL
     MOTHER REKHA @ REKHA H.R.         ...RESPONDENTS

        (BY SRI A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV. FOR R-2;
         SRI R.L.UDAY KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-3 & R-4;
NOTICE TO R-1 DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED
                       10.12.2021.)


     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2020
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN MFA NO.766/2017(MV)
AND CONSEQUENTLY MODIFY THE SAME BY ORDERING FOR
APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
INDIRESH, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                         -3-


                       ORDER

This review petition is filed by respondent Nos.3

and 4 in MFA.No.766/2017 seeking review of the

impugned judgment dated 14.9.2020.

2. We have heard Mr.Jumbigi Prabhugouda,

learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Uday Kumar,

learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

3. The case of the review petitioners is that

their son - Gangadhar died in a road traffic accident on

23.12.2013 and accordingly, the claimants (wife and

son) as well as the petitioners herein have lost the bread

earner in the family and as such, filed MVC.No.10/2014

on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Anekal, seeking

compensation.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the material

on record and the evidence adduced by the parties,

allowed the claim petition in part and awarded

compensation of Rs.10,62,100/- along with interest at

the rate of 8% pa., from the date of the claim petition till

the date of realization and accordingly, answered the

issues formulated therein. Being not satisfied with the

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the

claimants - wife of the deceased and the child, have

preferred MFA.No.766/2017 before this Court and this

Court after hearing the learned counsel representing the

parties by judgment dated 14.9.2020 allowed the appeal

in part and passed the order, which reads as under;

"1. Appeal is allowed in part;

2. The judgment and award dated 27.10.2016 passed in MVC No.10/2014 by the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the total compensation to Rs.17,22,800/- in lieu of Rs.10,62,100/- awarded by the Tribunal;

3. It is made clear that the claimants are entitled for interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till date of realisation;

4. The portion of order of the Tribunal in respect of apportionment and disbursement remain undisturbed.

5. Draw modified award accordingly."

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated

14.9.2020, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in MFA

No.766/2017 have presented this review petition.

6. Learned counsel representing the review

petitioners herein contended that there are four

dependents and accordingly, 1/4th deduction ought to

have been done insofar as the personal expenses of the

deceased and therefore, he sought for review of the

judgment dated 14.9.2020. He further contended that,

there is no apportionment of compensation insofar as

the petitioners herein and the claimants and

accordingly, he sought for appropriate apportionment of

compensation. Further, he contended that this Court

has not awarded consortium insofar as the petitioners

herein, who are parents of the deceased. Accordingly,

he sought for review of the judgment dated 14.9.2020.

7. Per contra, Mr.Uday Kumar, learned counsel

for respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein/claimants argued

that insofar as the apportionment of compensation is

concerned, the petitioners herein have not represented

before the Tribunal and they have been placed exparte

and therefore, they are not entitled for compensation in

this review petition. He further contended that in the

event there is apportionment of compensation the

claimants are the widow and child aged about 2 years at

the time of filing of the claim petition, and their interest

has to be safeguarded.

8. Having considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have

noticed that this Court by judgment dated 14.9.2020

while computing the compensation regarding loss of

dependency has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal

expenses of the deceased. However, in terms of the law

declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

'Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another', reported in [2009] 6 SCC

121, the appropriate deduction would be 1/4th as there

are four dependents. Therefore, we find force in the

submission made by the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners.

9. Insofar as the award towards loss of

consortium is concerned, it is not disputed by the

parties that the petitioners herein are the parents of the

deceased and therefore, in terms of the law declared by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance

Company Limited v/s. Somwati and others, reported

in (2020) 9 SCC 644, the petitioners herein are also

entitled for compensation under loss of consortium.

10. Nextly, insofar as apportionment of

compensation is concerned, we have carefully

considered the finding recorded by the Tribunal,

wherein it is reflected that, at the time of filing the claim

petition the first claimant was aged about 22 years and

claimant No.1 had a son aged about 2 years.

Accordingly, taking into consideration, the age of the

petitioners herein (the parents of the deceased) and the

claimants before the Tribunal, who have been arraigned

as respondent Nos.3 and 4 in this petition, we are of the

considered view that the claimant No.1 - wife of the

deceased is entitled for 40%, claimant No.2 - son of the

deceased is entitled for 30% of the compensation. The

petitioners herein, who are the parents of the deceased

are entitled for 15% each in respect of the compensation

awarded in this review petition.

11. Accordingly, in view of the finding recorded

as said above, the computation of the compensation is

redetermined as under;

 Sl.No.                 Particulars              Amount (Rs.)
   1         Loss of dependency                   18,14,400/-
   2         Spouse consortium                       40,000/-
   3         Parental consotritum                    40,000/-
   4         Loss of estate                          15,000/-
   5         Transportation      and     other       15,000/-
             misc.expenses
   6         Filial consortium                       80,000/-
                                                    (40,000/-
                                                        each)
                                         Total    20,04,400/-

12. The claimants as well as the petitioners

herein are entitled for total compensation of

Rs.20,04,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on

the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till

date of realization subject to apportionment as per

paragraph 10 herein above.

13. Accordingly, the following;

ORDER

i) Review petition is allowed;

ii) The judgment dated 14.9.2020 passed in MFA

No.766/2017 is modified by enhancing the

- 10 -