Karnataka High Court
Smt Malligamma vs Sri Manjunath on 8 January, 2021
Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun
1
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
MFA NO.929 OF 2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MALLIGAMMA
W/O LATE SOMANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
2. SMT. HEMAVATHI D. S.
D/O LATE SOMANNA
W/O GURUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT BIDARAHALLI HUNDI VILLAGE
KANDALIKE HOBLI
H.D.KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 121
3. SMT. CHANDRAKALA D. S.
D/O LATE SOMANNA
W/O RAJESH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
4. SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR D.S.
S/O LATE SOMANNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
THE APPELLANTS NO.1, 3 AND 4 ARE
R/AT NO.159/6-A, 4TH CROSS
KANDAYA COLONY, J. P. NAGARA
MYSURU - 570 008 ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SRINIVASA D. C., ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. SRI. MANJUNATH
S/O GURUMALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO.11, DODDAKARURU
THALUR POST, JAYAPURA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570 008
(DRIVER OF LORRY NO.KA-09-B-8851)
2. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BY ITS MANAGER, NO.1003-E-8
RICO INDUSTRIAL AREA
SITA PURA-JAIPUR
RAJASTHAN STATE - 302 022
ALSO BRANCH OFFICE AT
NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR
S. V. ARCADE, BILEKAHALLI
MAIN ROAD, BANNERGHATTA ROAD
IIMB POST, BENGALURU - 560 076
(INSURER OF LORRY NO.KA-09-B-8851)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.N. KESHAWA PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR R2;
R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGASINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 03.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1111/2016 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU AS A
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT, MYSURU, 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:
3
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 03.11.2018
passed by the Judge, Additional Small Causes & Senior Civil
Judge, at Mysuru, (for short 'the Tribunal') in MVC
No.1111/2016, 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 07.08.2015 at
about 6.00 a.m. the deceased Somanna who is the husband of
the petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 was
proceeding on his TVS Wego Vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-09-HP-
4820 on Udboor-Hullahalli road. At that time, the driver of the
Ashok Leyland Dost LE-BS3 bearing Reg.No.KA-09-B-8851 being
driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the vehicle
of the deceased which resulted in him sustaining multiple injuries
and succumbed to the same. Hence, the petitioners preferred
MVC No.1111/2016 and claimed compensation of
Rs.21,00,000/-.
After service of notice, the respondents have appeared
through their respective counsel and filed their statement of
objections before the Tribunal denying liability and prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The petitioners examined two witnesses as PWs 1 and 2
and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. Respondents have not examined
any witnesses nor got marked any documents.
5. Based on the pleadings and evidence let in, the Tribunal
has awarded a sum of Rs.2,99,000/- as compensation to the
petitioners. Though it is claimed that the deceased was retired
Head Constable and also an Agriculturist, no documents were
produced and hence the Tribunal has assessed his monthly
income notionally at Rs.4,500/- per month. We find the same to
be on the lower side. The accident is of the year 2015 and the
notional income to be adopted for the said year as per the chart
prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority with
consultation of the Insurance companies is Rs.9,000/- per
month. The deceased at the time of the death was aged about
62 years. Petitioner No.1 being his wife alone can be considered
to be dependant whereas, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 being his
daughters are married and petitioner No.4 being his son is
earning and living independently and cannot be termed as
dependants. Given his age, no future prospects can be awarded
and 1/3rd of his income has to be deducted towards personal
expenses. Further, a multiplier of '7' is adopted to calculate loss
of dependency. Thus, petitioners are entitled to a sum of
Rs.5,04,000/- under the head loss of dependency (9,000 x 12 x
7 x 2/3).
6. Further, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Somwati
[(2020)9 SCC 644], petitioners are entitled to a sum of
Rs.70,000/- towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses and
loss of estate. Thus, in all a sum of Rs.5,74,000/- is awarded as
against Rs.2,99,000/- granted by the Tribunal.
7. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i] Appeal is allowed in part.
ii] The total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.5,74,000/-
as against Rs.2,99,000/- which shall carry interest
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
MH/-
