Karnataka High Court
Rajendra @ Rajendra Achar vs Manjunath on 12 January, 2021
Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
MFA NO.2169 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. RAJENDRA @ RAJENDRA ACHAR
S/O VASUDEV ACHARI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
OCCUPATION COOLIE
R/O KONDULURU
SALURU VILLAGE
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
PRESENTLY R/AT
KARIGERASU
KOTETARIGA POST
HOSANAGARA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 431
2. AMITH R.
S/O RAJENDRA ACHARI
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS
MINOR REP. BY HIS
FATHER NATURAL GUARDIAN
APPELLANT NO.1
R/AT KARIGERASU
KOTETARIGA POST
HOSANAGARA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 431 ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GANAPATHI, ADV. )
2
AND:
1. MANJUNATH
S/O NARASIMHA ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
OCC. COOLIE
R/O KONDLURU SALURU
POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
RIDER OF SPLENDOR PLUS
BIKE, BEARING REG. NO.
KA-47/K-8947
2. PURANDAR KHARVI
S/O MANJUNATH KHARVI
AGED ABOUAT 38 YEARS
ASSISTANT TEACHER
NATIONAL RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOL, KONANDUR
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 422
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, VINAYAKA
COMPLEX, GARDEN AREA
1ST CROSS, SHIMOGGA - 577 201
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. M. VENKATESH, ADV. FOR R3;
R1 AND R2 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED PASSED IN MVC NO.625/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
MACT, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT SAGAR, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
3
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
M.I.ARUN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
24.10.2017 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions
Judge and Additional MACT, Shivamogga, Sitting at Sagar
(for short 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.625/2017, 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 09.03.2017
deceased Padmavathi was going to
Hindalemane/Ramathirtha of village Karigerasu of
Hosanagar Taluk as a pillion rider on the Splendor Plus bike
bearing Registration No.KA-47/K.8947. The first respondent
was riding the said bike, when they came near the house of
one Chinnappa of Hugudi/Malalikoppa village on
Shanthapura-Garthikere Main road, due to rash and
negligent riding of first respondent, the deceased fell down
and sustained injuries, immediately she was shifted to
hospital and she succumbed to injuries on the way to
Kasturba Hospital, Manipal.
4. Petitioner No.1 is her husband, petitioner No.2 is
the minor son. The respondent No.1 is the rider of the
motor bike, respondent No.2 is the owner of the motor bike.
Respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company with which the
offending motor cycle was insured. Hence, the petitioners
preferred MVC No.625/2017 and claimed a compensation of
Rs.40,00,000/-.
5. After service of summons, respondents have
appeared through their respective counsel before the
Tribunal. Respondents No.1 and 2 have not filed any
written statement. Respondent No.3 has filed written
statement denying the liability and prayed for dismissal of
the claim petition.
6. The petitioner No.1 got himself examined as PW-1
and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.16. The respondents did not
examine any witness but got marked three documents as
Exs.R1 to R3.
7. Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, the
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened
due to rash and negligent driving of the motor bike and
awarded a sum of Rs.7,76,800/- along with interest @ 6%
per annum to the petitioners. Not satisfied by the award,
the petitioners therein have preferred this appeal.
8. The factum of accident, the negligence of the
respondent No.1 and the fact that the same has been
insured with respondent No.3 is not in dispute. The only
question that arises for consideration in this appeal is the
quantum of compensation.
9. The accident happened on 09.03.2017. It is the
specific contention of the petitioners that deceased was
working as Anganavadi teacher and was drawing a salary of
Rs.6,366/-. Based on the said submission, the Tribunal has
considered Rs.6,400/- to be the monthly income of the
deceased. We do not find any error in the same. However,
the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects as per
the law laid down in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. The deceased at the
time of the accident was aged about 44 years. Hence, 30%
has to be added to the income of the deceased towards
future prospects as the deceased was having a permanent
job. Thus on count of loss of dependency, the petitioners
are entitled to a sum of Rs.9,31,840/- (6,400 + 30% x 12 x
14 x 2/3).
10. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Somwati
[(2020)9 SCC 644], the petitioners are also entitled to a
sum of Rs.40,000/- each and additional sum of Rs.30,000/-
towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all,
the petitioners would be entitled to Rs.10,41,840/- as
against Rs.7,76,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i] Appeal is allowed in part.
ii] The total compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to
Rs.10,41,840/- as against Rs.7,76,800/- 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
ag
