Karnataka High Court

Smt Shobha vs Y G Basavaraju on 5 January, 2021

Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                          PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                             AND

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

                  M.F.A.No.2701/2019 (MV)

BETWEEN :

1.      SMT.SHOBHA
        W/O LATE M.CHIDANANDA,
        AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

2.      DEEKSHITH
        S/O LATE M.CHIDANANDA,
        6 YEARS, MINOR REP. BY HIS
        NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
        SMT.SHOBHA i.e., 1ST APPELLANT.

        R/O UDDEBORANAHALLI VILLAGE,
        NOW R/AT BALLIGANUR,
        BIRURU HOBLI, KADUR TALUK,
        CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577548.          ...APPELLANTS

                  (BY SRI R.C.NAGARAJ, ADV.)

AND :

1.      Y.G.BASAVARAJU
        S/O GOVINDAPPA, 40 YEARS,
        R/O YAREHALLI VILLAGE,
        BIRURU POST, BIRURU HOBLI,
        KADUR TALUK,
        CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577548.
                           -2-

2.   MANJUNATH K.S.,
     S/O SOMAIAH, 45 YEARS,
     R/O MALIYAMMA BEEDHI,
     DODDAPPETE, KADUR TOWN,
     CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT-577548.

3.   IFFCO-TOKYO GENERAL
     INSURANCE COMPANY,
     MYSORE-570006,
     REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER.

4.   M.K.PRAVEENKUMAR
     S/O KRISHNEGOWDA, 35 YEARS,
     VEGETABLE MERCHANT,
     R/O MANJUNATH SCHOOL ROAD,
     HOUSING BOARD,
     CHIKMAGALURU TOWN-577548.

5.   THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     CHIKMAGALURU TOWN-577548
     REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
                                      ...RESPONDENTS


      (BY SRI MURALIDHAR NEGAVAR, ADV. FOR R-3;
           SRI C.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R-5;
               R-1, R-2 & R-4 ARE SERVED.)


     THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT   AGAINST   THE   JUDGMENT   AND   AWARD   DATED
01.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.58/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                               -3-


                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment and

award dated 01.09.2018 passed in MVC No.58/2013 by

the Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Kadur,

Chikkamangaluru District ('Tribunal' for short).

2. The claimants instituted the petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming

compensation for the death of M. Chidananda in the

road traffic accident.

3. It was averred in the claim petition that on

04.04.2012 while the deceased - M. Chidananda and

U.V. Kusha were proceeding in the motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-18-L-8042 towards Halebeedu, met

with the road traffic accident owing to the rash and

negligence of the driver of the tractor bearing

registration No.KA-18-TA-1193 (offending vehicle) which

was negligently parked in the middle of the road without

any signal due to which the deceased - M. Chidananda

sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

4. It was contended that the deceased was an

agriculturist and earning Rs.39,000/- per annum. Due

to the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants are

suffering from mental agony besides loss of dependency

and love and affection. On these set of facts, the

claimants sought for the compensation.

5. In response to the notice, respondent Nos.1

have filed separate objection statements. Respondent

No.4 having not appeared before the Tribunal, was

placed ex-parte.

6. The defence set up by the respondent Nos.2

and 3 are that the respondent No.1, driver of the

tractor-trailer has parked the said vehicle on the left

side of the road with signal and indication since the left

side wheel of the trailer was punctured. The deceased -

M. Chidananda has ridden the motorcycle in a rash and

negligent manner in a high speed and dashed to the left

side of the trailer which was parked by the side of the

road. There was no negligence on the part of the said

respondent.

7. The respondent No.3 has contended that the

respondent No.1 did not possess valid and effective

driving licence as on the date of the accident. The

respondent No.2 has handed over the possession of the

vehicle to the said driver. The compensation claimed is

exorbitant. Accordingly, both of them sought for the

dismissal of the petition.

8. Respondent No.5 - insurance company

admitting the issuance of the policy to the vehicle

denied the averments of the petition in toto. The main

defence set up was that the accident occurred only due

to the negligence of the respondent No.1 who had no

valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the

accident. The respondent No.4 voluntarily permitted the

deceased - M. Chidananda to drive the motor cycle

knowing fully well that he was not holding the driving

licence, thereby violating the terms and conditions of

the insurance policy. Accordingly, sought for the

dismissal of the claim petition.

9. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were

framed and answered as per the reasons recorded in the

impugned judgment partly allowing the claim petition

awarding compensation amount of Rs.9,01,000/- with

interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of

the petition till its realisation.

10. This matter was clubbed with MVC

No.33/2013 filed by the injured who was a pillion rider

and a common judgment has been passed by the

Tribunal.

11. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded, the claimants have preferred

the present appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the

appellants/claimants submitted that the Tribunal has

awarded inadequate compensation which under any

stretch of imagination cannot be considered as just and

proper. The Tribunal has failed to award future

prospects. The determination of income made at

Rs.6,000/- per month is on the lower side. Further, the

compensation awarded under the conventional heads is

also meager. On these set of grounds, learned counsel

sought for enhancement of the compensation.

13. Learned counsel for the insurers of the

vehicles submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just

and proper compensation on appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence and there is no scope for further

enhancement. Accordingly, sought for the dismissal of

the appeal confirming the judgment and award of the

Tribunal.

14. We have carefully considered the rival

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and perused the materials on record.

15. The controversy involved in this appeal is

only inasmuch as the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. Having heard

the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the

material on record, it is discernable that the deceased

was aged about 30 years and was working as an

agriculturist. In the absence of proof of income, this

Court is consistently referring to the chart prepared by

the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority to

determine the income of the victim of the road traffic

accident, notionally. Having regard to the same, the

monthly income of the deceased could be easily

determined at Rs.7,000/-. Adding 40% towards the

future prospects, the total income would be Rs.9,800/-

(7,000 + 2,800). Applying the multiplier of '17',

deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living

expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency would

work out to Rs.13,32,800/- (9,800 x 12 x 17 x 2/3).

16. In terms of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017)16 SCC

680 and New India Assurance Company Limited v/s.

Somwati and others reported in 2020 SCC ONLINE

SC 720, the claimants - widow and the child of the

deceased - M. Chidananda are entitled to Rs.40,000/-

towards loss of spousal consortium; Rs.40,000/-

towards loss of parental consortium; Rs.15,000/-

towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral

expenses.

- 10 -

17. For the reasons aforesaid, the total

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed

as under:

Sl.No. Particulars Amount [in Rs.]

1. Loss of dependency 13,32,800/-

                  Loss      of     spousal
    2.                                                     40,000/-
                  consortium
                    Loss     of   parental
    3.                                                      40,000/-
                  consortium
    4.                 Loss of estate                       15,000/-
                      Towards funeral
    5.                                                      15,000/-
                          expenses
                     Total                              14,42,800/-

Thus,       the     claimants      shall   be   entitled    to   total

compensation of Rs.14,42,800/- with interest at the

rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation

amount from the date of the claim petition till the date

of realization.

18. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

ii) The total compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is modified and enhanced to

- 11 -

Rs.14,42,800/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs

Forty Two Thousand Eight Hundred only) as