Karnataka High Court
Naganna @ Goudra Nagarajappa vs G O Jagadish on 6 January, 2021
Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH 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.753/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN :
1. NAGANNA @ GOUDRA NAGARAJAPPA
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST
2. SMT.HALAMMA
W/O NAGANNA @ GOUDRA NAGARAJAPPA,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC:HOUSE HOLD WORK
BOTH ARE R/AT SALAGATTE VILLAGE,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 521 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI R.SATISH CHANDRA, ADV.)
AND :
1. G.O.JAGADISH
S/O OMKARAPPA G., AGE: 24 YEARS,
DRIVER OF TRACTOR & TRAILER
BEARING REG.NO.KA16/TA-7046-47
R/O NANDIHALLI VILLAGE
CHOULIHALLI POST,
CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT-577 501
2. OMKARAPPA G.,
S/O NAGAPPA, AGE: 22 YEARS,
OWNER OF TRACTOR & TRAILER
BEARING REG.NO.KA16/TA-7046-47
-2-
R/AT NANDIHALLI VILLAGE
CHOULIHALLI POST,
CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT-577 501
3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE:MELAGIRI PLAZA,
OPPOSITE TO DENTAL COLLEGE,
MCC B BLOCK,
DAVANAGERE-577 002 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.NARAYANAPPA, ADV. FOR R-3; R-1 & R-2 SERVED.)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
17.05.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.319/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & V MACT, DAVANAGERE,
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated 17.05.2017 passed in MVC No.319/2016
on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and V
Addl. MACT, Davanagere [Tribunal for short].
2. The claimants instituted the petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking
compensation for the death of Manjunath in the road
traffic accident.
3. It was averred in the claim petition that the
deceased Manjunath while travelling in the motor cycle
bearing Reg. No.KA-16-ED-0993 along with the pillion
rider P. Rakesh, met with the road traffic accident on
31.1.2015 at about 8.30 p.m. owing to the actionable
negligence of the driver of the Tractor and Trailer
bearing Reg.No.KA-16-TA-7046-47(offending vehicle). As
a result, the deceased succumbed to the accidental
injuries on 4.2.2016 at about 1.30 p.m. while taking
treatment at Kasturba Hospital, Manipal.
4. It was contended that the deceased was an
agriculturist besides working at petrol bunk. The
untimely death of the deceased has caused mental
shock and agony. The claimants have lost the earning
member with loss of dependency, love and affection etc.,
5. On these set of facts and grounds, the
claimants sought for compensation.
6. In response to the notice issued by the
Tribunal, the respondent No.1 has failed to appear and
as such he was placed exparte. The respondent Nos.2
and 3 appeared through their respective counsel and
filed their independent objection statement. The
defence set up was that the petitions are not
maintainable in law or on facts. The rash and negligent
riding of the claimant was the cause of the accident.
Admitting the issuance of the policy, it was contended
that the liability, if any, shall be subject to the policy
conditions.
7. On the basis of the pleadings, the following
issues were framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on
31.1.2016 at about 8.30 p.m. near
Dyapanahalli cross road, Chitradurga Taluk,
when the deceased was proceeding in his
motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA 15/ED-0993,
respondent No.1 being the driver of the tractor
Trolley bearing Reg.No.KA 16/TA 7046-47 has
drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the petitioner
motor cycle, for which he has sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed at Kasturba
Manipal Hospital?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are
the legal heirs and dependents of the
deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation as prayed? If so, from whom
and what is the quantum?
4. What order?
8. The Tribunal answered the issue Nos.1 and
2 in the affirmative and issue No.3 partly in the
affirmative. The petition filed by the claimants was
partly allowed awarding total compensation of
Rs.8,85,359/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of
the petition till its realization.
9. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation, the claimants have preferred the present
appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the
claimants/appellants submitted that the Tribunal failed
to appreciate the material evidence available on record
in determining the income of the deceased and
committed a palpable error in awarding a meager
compensation much against the settled principles of law
vis-a-vis the oral and documentary evidence placed on
record.
11. Learned counsel for the insurer justifying
the impugned judgment and award argued that the
Tribunal on analyzing the oral and documentary
evidence has awarded just compensation and the same
does not call for any further enhancement.
12. We have carefully considered the rival
submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the original records.
13. The Tribunal though determined the
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-
notionally, in view of the chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which is
consistently followed by this Court while determining
the monthly income of the deceased in the road traffic
accident, we deem it apt to refer to the same.
Accordingly the monthly income can be safely re-
determined at Rs.9,000/- notionally. Adding 40% of the
same towards the future prospects, the total income
would work out to Rs.12,600/- (Rs.9000 + Rs.3600).
Applying the multiplier of 17 considering the age of the
deceased as 28 years, deducting 50% towards personal
and living expenses of the deceased, loss of dependency
would work out to Rs.12,85,200/- (Rs.12,600 x 12 x
17 ÷ 2).
14. In terms of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others ((2017)16 SCC 680) and
New India Assurance Company Limited V/s.
Somwati and Others reported in 2020 SCC online
SC 720, the claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.1,10,000/- under different heads. The claimants are
also entitled to medical expenses of Rs.1,13,359/- as
awarded by the Tribunal.
Sl.No. Particulars Amount [in Rs.]
1. Loss of dependency 12,85,200
Filial Consortium
2. (Rs.40000 to each 80,000
parent)
3. Loss of Estate 15,000
4. Funeral expenses 15,000
Towards medical
5. 1,13,359
expenses
Total 15,08,559
Thus in all, the claimants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.15,08,559/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition
till its realization.
15. Hence the following:
ORDER
i] Appeal is allowed in part.
ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is modified and enhanced to Rs.15,08,559/- as
against Rs.8,85,359/- which shall carry interest
at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced
compensation from the date of the claim petition
till its realization.
iii] The insurance company shall deposit the re-
assessed total compensation determined as
aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from
the date of receipt of the certified copy of the
judgment and order.
iv] The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch
as liability, apportionment and disbursement
remains intact.
- 10 -
v] The modified compensation shall be disbursed in
terms of the order of the Tribunal.
vi] Draw modified award accordingly.
vii] Registry shall transfer the amount in deposit along
with the original records to the jurisdictional
Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Dvr:
