Karnataka High Court
Sri Hanumanthappa vs Boresha @ Boresha O on 8 January, 2021
Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH 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.1758/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN :
1. SRI HANUMANTHAPPA
DECEASED BY HIS LRs.
1(a) RAMESH H.,
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
1(b) H.RAJU,
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT No.153,
JAGALUR TALUK,
BRAMHASAMUDRA VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577528.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE
CORT ORDER DATED 08.01.2001)
2. SMT.RENUKAMMA
W/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
THE APPELLANT NO.1 & 2 ARE
THE PARENTS OF THE
DECEASED LATE SRI RAVI
-2-
THE CLAIMANTS HEREIN ARE THE
PERMANENT R/O JAGALUR TALUK
BRAMHASAMUDRA VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
NOW R/AT BANGALORE, NO.306
1ST FLOOR, BASKAR NILAYA
5TH MAIN, BAHUBALI NAGAR
JALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 013 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI LAKSHMIKANTH M. ARYA, ADV. FOR A1(a) & A1(b))
AND :
1. BORESHA @ BORESHA O.,
S/O OBANNA, MAJOR
DONNEHALLI, HOSUR (V)
DONNEHALLI POST
JAGALURU TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577104
2. H.R.RAJAPPA
S/O HONNURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
DONNEHALLI, HOSUR (V)
DONNEHALLI POST
JAGALURU TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577104.
3. SRI JAYARAM REDDY
S/O N.R.NARAYANA REDDY
SRI HARI KRIPA, 2ND CROSS
2ND MAIN, S.B.LAYOUT
VIDHYANAGARA
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-578102
4. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
SHIVARANADAMUNI PLAZA
MCC B BLOCK,
MEDICAL COLLEGE ROAD,
DAVANAGERE-577 004 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR H., ADV. FOR R-3;
SRI A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV. FOR R-4; R-1 & R-2 SERVED.)
-3-
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
18.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.5608/2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT,
BENGALURU (SCCH-11), 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 18.07.2018 passed in MVC No.5608/2016
on the file of the I Additional Small Causes Judge and
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru (SCCH-
11) ('Tribunal' for short).
2. The claimants being the parents of the
deceased - H. Ravi instituted petition under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation
for the death of his son - H. Ravi in the road traffic
accident.
3. It was averred in the claim petition that on
11.02.2015 at about 4.45 p.m. when the deceased - H.
Ravi was riding his motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-17-EP-3563 from Bharamasamudhra towards
Jagalur side, a Car bearing registration No.KA-16-MB-
0099 (offending vehicle) driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner came from opposite direction and
dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which
the deceased fell down and sustained severe head
injury. Immediately, he was shifted to Jagaluru
Government Hospital and thereafter to S.S. Institution
of Medical Science and Research Centre, Jayashankara,
NH-4 Bypass, P.B. Road, Davanagere for higher
treatment. However, he died in the Hospital while taking
treatment.
4. It was contended that at the time of the
accident, the deceased was working as driver and
earning Rs18,000/- per month and he used to
contribute the entire amount to the family. Due to the
untimely death of the deceased, the claimants are
suffering from loss of love and affection, loss of
dependency etc., On these set of facts and grounds, the
claimants sought for compensation.
5. In response to the service of summons,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to appear and they were
placed ex-parte. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 had appeared
through their respective counsel and contested the
claim of claimants by filing written statement denying
the petition averments. The insurer - respondent No.4
disputed the manner of accident and contended that the
quantum of compensation claimed under the different
heads is exorbitant. It was contended that the alleged
accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the
deceased himself and as such, it is not liable to pay any
compensation.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were
framed and answered as per the reasons recorded in the
impugned judgment allowing the petition in part
awarding total compensation of Rs.10,43,783/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till its realization.
7. Being dissatisfied, the claimants are in
appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants submitted that the Tribunal has
failed to appreciate the material evidence on record in
awarding the compensation. The monthly income
determined by the Tribunal notionally at Rs.7,000/- is
on the lower side. It was further argued that the
compensation awarded under the different conventional
heads is meager and the same requires to be enhanced
substantially.
9. Learned counsel for the insurer submitted
that the Tribunal on appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence has awarded just and reasonable
compensation. The same does not call for any
interference by this Court. Accordingly, he sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
10. We have carefully considered the rival
submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the original records.
11. The main crux of the matter relates to the
determination of the income of the deceased by the
Tribunal. In the absence of proof of income, the
Tribunal has determined the monthly income of the
deceased notionally at Rs.7,000/-. Having regard to the
date of the accident, we deem it appropriate to re-
determine the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.9,000/- referring to the chart of the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority which is consistently followed
while determining the monthly income of the victim of
the road traffic accident notionally in the absence of the
proof of income. Thus, applying the same and adding
40% towards future prospects, the monthly income
would be Rs.12,600/-. Applying the multiplier of '17'
considering the age of the deceased in the age group of
26 to 30 years, deducting 50% towards personal and
living expenses, the loss of dependency would work out
to Rs.12,85,200/- (12,600 x 12 x 17 x ½).
12. 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) 9 SCC 644,
the claimants are entitled to Rs.80,000/- towards loss
of filial consortium (Rs.40,000/- to each parent);
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses.
13. 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 12,85,200/-
Loss of filial
2. consortium (Rs.40,000/- 80,000/-
to each parent)
3. Loss of estate 15,000/-
Towards funeral
4. 15,000/-
expenses
Total 13,95,200/-
Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.13,95,200/- with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition
till the date of realization.
14. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified and enhanced to
Rs.13,95,200/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs
- 10 -
Ninety Five Thousand Two Hundred only)
as against Rs.10,43,783/- with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of the claim petition till its
realization.
iii) The portion of the order of the Tribunal
inasmuch as liability, apportionment and
disbursement remains intact.
iv) The insurance company shall deposit the
amount determined as aforesaid before
the Tribunal within 90 days from the date
of receipt of the certified copy of the
judgment and order.
v) The modified compensation amount shall
be apportioned and disbursed in terms of
the order of the Tribunal.
vi) Draw modified award accordingly.
- 11 -
vii) The Registry shall transfer the original
records to the jurisdictional Tribunal
forthwith.
viii) All pending I.As. stand disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMR
