Sri. N Krishna Naika vs The Chief Engineer
2021 Latest Caselaw 277 Kant

                            1

 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

             MFA NO.215 OF 2018 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI. N. KRISHNA NAIKA
     S/O B. N. NAIKA
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
     R/O YEMMERAHALLI THANDA
     SIRA TALUK - 572 135
2.   KUMARI AKHILA
     D/O N. KRISHNA NAIKA
     AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS

3.   KUMARI POORNIMA
     D/O N.KRISHNA NAIKA
     AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS

4.   SANGEETHA
     D/O N. KRISHNA NAIKA
     AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS

5.   MALE BOY (NOT NAMED)
     8 MONTHS OLD BABY
     PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 5 ARE MINORS
     REP. BY 1ST APPELLANT
     N. KRISHNA NAIKA

     ALL ARE R/AT
     YEMMERAHALLI THANDA
     SIRA TALUK - 572 135               ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K., ADV.)
                               2

AND:

1.     THE CHIEF ENGINEER
       STATE HIGHWAY
       DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
       K.R.CIRCLE
       BANGALORE - 560 001

2.     THE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA
       GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPT.
       MOTOR BRANCH, K.G.I.D.
       BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001
                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. ROOPA, HCGP)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 27.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.783/2013
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
MACT, SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION     AND    SEEKING    ENHANCEMENT    OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated

27.03.2015 passed in MVC No.783/2013 by the Additional

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sira (for short 'the

Tribunal'), the petitioners therein have preferred this

appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.05.2013,

at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased Jayamma was crossing

the road in front of Jaihind Hotel on Tumkur-Sira NH-4

road, at that time, the driver of Bolero vehicle bearing

registration No.KA-42/G-632 came from Tumkur side in

a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

deceased, as a result of which, she suffered grievous

injuries and died on the spot.

4. Petitioner no.1 is her husband and petitioner nos.2

to 5 are her children. Respondent no.1 is the owner of

the bolero vehicle and respondent no.2 is the insurer.

The petitioners preferred MVC No.783/2013 before the

Tribunal.

5. The petitioners got examined two witnesses and

got marked Exs.P1 to P9. The respondents have not

examined any witness nor got marked any documents.

The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of

Rs.7,35,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the

date of petition till its realisation. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioners have preferred this appeal.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. The factum of accident and negligence on the part

of the driver of the offending vehicle is not in dispute.

The only question that arises for consideration in this

appeal is the quantum of compensation.

8. The accident happened in the year 2013. The

deceased was aged 30 years at the time of the accident.

No evidence is adduced in support of her income. The

Tribunal has taken her income at Rs.4,500/- per month.

We find it to be on the lower side. As per the chart

prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority in consultation with Insurance Companies, the

notional income to be adopted for the year 2013 is

Rs.8,000/- per month. The age of the deceased being

30 years, the multiplier to be adopted is 17. As per the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

[(2017) 16 SCC 680], 40% has to be added to the

income of the deceased towards future prospects. As

there have been 5 dependents, 1/4th of the income of

the deceased is deducted towards personal expenses.

Thus, on the count of loss of dependency, the petitioners

are entitled to Rs.17,13,600/- [Rs.8000/- + 40% X 12 X

17 X 3/4].

9. Further, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of

Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium as per the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New

India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Somwati [(2020)9 SCC

644]. Thus, together they are entitled to a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, they

are entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of

estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the

petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.19,43,600/- as

against Rs.7,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

10. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i] Appeal is allowed in part.

ii] The total compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is modified and enhanced to

Rs.19,43,600/- as against Rs.7,35,000/- 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.

However, denying the interest for the period of

922 days delay in filing the appeal in terms of

the order dated 13.11.2020.

iii] Respondent No.2 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 hkh.