Karnataka High Court
S Basavanthappa vs Jayantha on 6 January, 2021
Author: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No. 10890 OF 2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
S.BASAVANTHAPPA
S/O BENJEGERE MALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.93
ENNEKOPPA POST, KAMANAVALLI(ASALI)
SORABA TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577401.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.KARUNAKARA, ADV. )
AND
1. JAYANTHA
S/O GIRIAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
DRIVER
R/AT NALALACHIL HOUSE
KALAOOR VILLAGE
KUPPEPADVU, MANGALORE-575001.
2. BRANCH MANAGER
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
2
P.B.NO.705, 1ST FLOOR
RAMBHAVANA COMPLEX
KADIALBAIL, MANGALORE-575001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HARINI SHIVANDA, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:17.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1535/2010
ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & MEMBER MACT-VI, MANGALORE, D.K.,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',
for short) has been filed by the claimants being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.2.2012 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 24.3.2010 the deceased
Lingaraju.B.S. was standing by the side of the road
near Ladygoshan Hospital, Mangalore, at that time, an
auto bearing registration No.KA-19-A-4054 was being
driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against
the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident,
the deceased sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed to the injuries.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section
163A of the Act on the ground that the deceased was
aged about 40 years at the time of accident and was
working as real estate agent and was earning
Rs.40,000/- p.a.
4. On service of summons, the respondent
No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written
statement in which the averments made in the
petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition
itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was
further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash
and negligence of the deceased. It was further
pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by
the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the petition. The respondent No.1 did not
appear inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-
parte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence. To prove the case of the
claimant, the GPA holder of the claimant is examined
as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1
to Ex.P9. On behalf of respondents, no witness was
examined but got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1
to Ex.R3. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned
judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place
on account of rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which,
the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the
injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is
entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,14,500/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the
Insurance Company to deposit the compensation
amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this
appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has
contended that the deceased was aged about 40 years
at the time of the accident. The claim petition is filed
under Section 163A of the MV Act. As per the schedule
II of the Act, income of the deceased has to be taken
at Rs.40,000/- p.a. The multiplier has to be applied
based on the age group of the deceased. But the
Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier based on the
age of the father. The compensation awarded under
the head of 'loss of dependency' is on the lower side.
Further, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the conventional heads is on the lower side.
Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has contended that on
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the
Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable
compensation. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that deceased died in
the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
Since the claim petition is filed under Section 163A of
the MV Act, as per Schedule II of the Act, the income
of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.40,000/- p.a.
Out of which, it is appropriate to deduct 1/3rd towards
personal expenses and therefore, the annual income
comes to Rs.26,667/-. The deceased was aged about
40 years at the time of the accident and multiplier
applicable to his age group is '15'. Thus, the claimant
is entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,005/-
(Rs.26,667*15) on account of 'loss of dependency'.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under other heads remains unaltered.
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 400,005
Funeral expenses 5,000
Loss of estate 5,000
Los of love and affection 10,000
Conveyance charges 2,500
Total 422,505
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation
of Rs.422,505/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 6%
p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the
Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
