Karnataka High Court
Smt Lalithamma vs Sri Masood Vali B 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.913/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN :
1. SMT.LALITHAMMA
W/O LATE MANJAPPA A.K.
@ MANJUNATH A.K.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
2. SRI SWAMY M.L.,
S/O LATE MANJAPPA A.K.
@ MANJUNATH A.K.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT
3. MASTER PRAVEEN M.,
S/O LATE MANJAPPA A.K.
@ MANJUNATH A.K.,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
4. MASTER PRADEEP M.,
S/O LATE MANJAPPA A.K.
@ MANJUNATH A.K.,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
5. MASTER PRASHANTH
S/O LATE MANJAPPA A.K.
@ MANJUNATH A.K.,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS
-2-
APPELLANT No.4 & 5 ARE MINORS,
REP BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
& GUARDIAN SMT.LALITHAMMA,
W/O LATE MANJUNATHA A.K.
ALL ARE R/O No.198,
BABU JAGAJEEVAN RAM NAGAR,
BUDAL ROAD, DAVANAGERE CITY-577001.
6. SRI K.GULLAPPA
S/O LATE BHEEMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCC:NIL, R/O # 198,
BABU JAGAJEEVAN RAM NAGAR,
BUDAL ROAD,
DAVANAGERE CITY-577001. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G.S.BALAGANGADHAR, ADV.)
AND :
1. SRI MASOOD VALI B.,
S/O MASIDU KATTA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC:DRIVER OF ASHOK LEYLAND,
HEAVY LORRY BEARING
REG NO.AP-02/TB-4428
R/O NARAPALA (AT).
ANATHAPURA TALUK & DISTRICT-575001,
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.
2. SRI KANDALURI SHANKAR REDDY
S/O K.NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC:BUSINESS & OWNER OF
ASHOK LEYLAND HEAVY LOORY,
BEARING REG NO.AP-02/TB-4428,
R/O H.NO.16-815, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
NANDALAPANDU, THADAPATHRI CITY-515411
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
POLICY ISSUING OFFICE,
-3-
TADAPATHRI BRANCH,
TADAPATHRI CITY-515411,
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE,
BY ITS BRANCH OFFICE,
AT WALI COMPLEX, SHIMOGA ROAD,
HARIHARA TOWN,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001
(POLICY NO.61070431160100000092)
VALID FROM 13/04/2016
TO 12/04/2017.) ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.SHANKAR REDDY, 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
24.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC No.531/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT-IX, HARAPANAHALLI, PARTLY
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 24.7.2017 passed in MVC No.531/2016 on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge & MACT-IX at
Harapanahalli [Tribunal for short].
2. The claimants instituted the petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking
compensation for the death of Manjappa @ Manjunatha
in the road traffic accident.
3. The claimants averred in the claim petition
that the deceased Manjapapa @ Manjunatha while
riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-17/EC 6151
near Kodi Siddeshwara temple in Harapanahalli Taluk,
met with the road traffic accident owing to actionable
negligence of the driver of the heavy goods lorry bearing
Reg.No.AP-02/TB-4428 (offending vehicle), as a result,
the rider of the motor cycle fell down and sustained fatal
injuries. Immediately the deceased was shifted to
SSIMS Hospital, Davanagere and had taken treatment
as an inpatient from 22.4.2016 to 23.4.2016 and
succumbed to the injuries on 23.4.2016 at about 4.15
p.m.
4. It was averred that the deceased was
running Prashantha Military Hotel at S.S.Badavane,
Shamanur Road in Davanagere and earning income of
Rs.4,48,000/- per year. Due to the untimely death of
the deceased, the claimants have lost the earning
member besides the loss of love and affection, loss of
dependency etc.,
5. On these set of facts and grounds, the
claimants have sought for compensation.
6. In response to the service of notice,
respondent No.3-insurer appeared through its advocate
despite service of notice have remained absent and were
placed exparte. Respondent No.3 filed objections
denying the petition averments and the main defence
set up was that as on the date of the accident, the driver
of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and
effective Driving Licence to drive the said vehicle and the
owner of the vehicle willfully without taking any
precautions had handed over the vehicle and hence the
owner of the vehicle has violated the policy conditions.
Further it was contended that the accident occurred
due to the contributory negligence on the part of the
rider of the motor cycle and as such the owner and
insurer of the motor cycle are necessary parties to the
petition and as such the petition is bad for non-joinder
of necessary parties. On these grounds, the respondent
No.3 prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were
framed and answered allowing the petition in part
awarding total compensation of Rs.13,71,400/- with
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its
realization.
8. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation, the claimants have preferred the present
appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted
that the Tribunal has grossly erred in determining the
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,500/-. It was
submitted that no compensation towards future
prospects has been awarded.
10. Learned counsel further argued that the
compensation awarded under the conventional heads is
meager and the same deserves to be enhanced
substantially.
11. Learned counsel for the insurer justifying
the impugned judgment and award submitted that the
Tribunal on profuse analysis of the material evidence
has awarded just compensation.
12. We have carefully considered the rival
submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the original records.
13. The main controversy relates to the
determination of the income notionally by the Tribunal.
It is well settled that this Court is referring to the chart
prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority to determine the monthly income of the
deceased in the road traffic accident in the absence of
proof of income which would be Rs.9,500/- having
regard to the date of the accident. Applying the same,
awarding future prospects to the extent of 40% of the
said income, the total income would be Rs.13,300/-
(9500 + 3800 = 13,300). Since the deceased was aged
bout 38 years, applying the multiplier of 15, deducting
1/4th of his income towards the personal and living
expenses, loss of dependency would work out to
Rs.17,95,500/- (Rs.13300 x 12 x 15 x ¾).
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.2,30,000/- under different heads as under:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount [in Rs.]
1. Loss of dependency 17,95,500
Towards spousal
2. Consortium 40,000
3. Towards filial consortium 40,000
Towards Parental
consortium 1,20,000
4.
(Rs.40000 to each minor
child)
5. Funeral expenses 15,000
6. Towards loss of estate 15,000
7. Towards medical expenses 38,900
Total 20,64,400
Thus the claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.20,64,400/- with interest @ 6% p.a. 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.20,64,400/- as
against Rs.13,71,400/- which shall carry interest
- 10 -
at the rate of 6% per annum 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.
v] The modified compensation shall be disbursed in
terms of the order of the Tribunal.
vi] Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Dvr:
