Karnataka High Court
Smt Sharadhamma vs Halappa H @ Haleshappa on 16 January, 2021
Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH 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.752/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN :
1. SMT.SHARADHAMMA
W/O LATE ESHWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
PRESENT : NO OCCUPATION
R/AT HOLE SIRIGERE VILLAGE,
HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577530
2. SRI YERRISWAMY M.H.,
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
OCCUPATION : NIL
R/AT HOLE SIRIGERE VILLAGE,
HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577530 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI R.SATISH CHANDRA, ADV.)
AND :
1. HALAPPA H. @ HALESHAPPA
S/O VEERAPPA, AGE NOT KNOWN
DRIVER OF MARUTHI OMNI KA-17-P-0944
R/AT HOLE SIRIGERE VILLAGE,
HARIHARA TALUK-577516
2. HANUMANTHAPPA G.H.,
S/O LATE HALAPPA G.,
SINCE DEAD BY LR's
-2-
2(a) SMT.SAVITHA
W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA G.H.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST,
BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577530
2(b) . CHI. BHARATH G.H.,
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA G.H.,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, MINOR
REP BY HIS MOTHER & NATURAL
GUARDIAN SMT.SAVITHA
W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA G.H.,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577530
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, THE MANAGER
PRAVASI MANDIRA ROAD,
DAVANAGERE - 577001
4. SHIVARAJ
S/O BASAPPA, BUS DRIVER
BADGE No.1517, KSRTC BUS
NUMBER KA-18-F-0673
ADARSHA NAGAR,
BEHIND KSRTC DEPOT, 1ST CROSS,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101
5. THE DIVISION CONTROLLER
KSRTC CHIKKAMAGALURU DEPOT
(OWNER OF BUS KA-17-F-1163)
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR R-3;
SRI N.KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-5;
R-2(a) & R-4 ARE SERVED; R-2(b) IS MINOR REP. BY R-2(a).)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
22.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.413/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HARIHARA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-3-
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 22.11.2018 passed in MVC No.413/2015
on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Harihara [Tribunal for short].
2. The claimants instituted the petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming
compensation for the death of Hanumanthappa in the
road traffic accident.
3. It was contended that on 10.05.2014 at about
04.00 a.m., while the deceased Hanumanthappa was
traveling in Maruti Omni bearing registration No.KA12-P-
944 near Cheeluru village, Honnali Taluk, a KSRTC bus
bearing No.KA-18-F-673 coming from the opposite
direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner dashed to the Maruti Omni. Due to which, the
deceased sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot.
4. It was contended that the deceased was aged
about 40 years at the time of the accident and was
earning Rs.15,000/- as a driver besides doing business
in paddy. Due to the untimely death of the deceased,
the claimants have lost the sole bread earner of the
family and are suffering from untold mental agony, loss
of dependency etc. On these set of facts and grounds,
the claimants sought for compensation.
5. In response to service of notice, the
respondents appeared through their respective counsel
and contested the claim. The primary defence of the
respondent - Corporation [Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation] was that the accident in
question occurred due to the negligence of the driver of
the Maruti Omni and not due to the negligence of the
KSRTC bus. However, an interim compensation of
Rs.50,000/- was awarded to the legal representatives of
the deceased on sympathetical grounds. Accordingly,
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal
framed the issues and allowed the petition in part
awarding total compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the
petition till its realization.
7. Being aggrieved, the claimants have
preferred the present appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued
that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the material
evidence on record in determining the income of the
deceased, denying the future prospects. It was argued
that the income determined by the Tribunal is meager
and the same requires to be enhanced substantially
having regard to the date of the accident and the age of
the deceased. The compensation awarded under the
different heads is on lower side.
9. Learned counsel for the Corporation justifying
the impugned judgment and award submitted that the
Tribunal after extensively analyzing the material evidence
on record, has awarded just and proper compensation
which does not call for any interference by this Court and
the same requires to be confirmed. Accordingly, sought
for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perusing the material on record, the point
that arises for our consideration is:
Whether the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case?
11. The factum of accident and the death of the
Hanumanthappa are not in dispute. The Tribunal
determined the monthly income of the deceased
notionally at Rs.6,000/- and deducted 1/3rd towards
the personal and living expenses of the deceased.
Referring to the chart prepared by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority, the monthly income of the
deceased is re-determined at Rs.8,500/-. Since the
deceased was aged about 40 years, adding 40% towards
the future prospects, the monthly income of the
deceased would be Rs.11,900/-. Applying the multiplier
of 15, deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living
expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency would
work out to Rs.14,28,000/- [11,900 x 12 x 15 x 2/3].
12. In terms of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others ((2017)16 SCC 680) and New
India Assurance Company Limited V/s. Somwati
and Others 2020 [SCC ONLINE SC 720], the claimants
are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- under the
conventional heads viz., Rs.40,000/- towards filial
consortium; Rs.40,000/- towards the parental
consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
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 14,28,000/-
2. Loss of Filial Consortium 40,000/-
3. Loss of Parental Consortium 40,000/-
4. Loss of Estate 15,000/-
5. Funeral expenses 15,000/-
Total 15,38,000/-
Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.15,38,000/- 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] Appeal is allowed in part.
ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is modified and enhanced to Rs.15,38,000/- as
against Rs.7,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal
which shall carry 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 Corporation 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.
v] The modified compensation shall be disbursed in
terms of the order of the Tribunal.
vi] Draw modified award accordingly.
vii] All the pending I.As stand disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
NC.
