Karnataka High Court
Smt. Yallamma vs Sri. Jayar Pasha on 7 July, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.2947/2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SMT. YALLAMMA,
W/O SANNE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BESTHARA BEEDI,
KONANUR, KONANUR HOBLI,
ARKALAGUD TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI B. RAVINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI JAYAR PASHA,
S/O RAJA MOHAMMAD,
RESIDING AT KAKANAMANE,
BAGE POST, BELAGODU HOBLI,
SAKLESHPURA TALUK.
2. THE MANAGER,
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
E-8, EPIC RII.CO. INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SEETHAPURA JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302022.
REP BY LEGAL OFFICER,
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MOBARECH CHEMBER, 3RD FLOOR,
INFANTRY ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
NOTICE TO R-1 HELD SUFFICIENT)
2
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.09.2014
PASSED IN MVC.NO.1254/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, ARKALGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH 'VIDEO
CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award
dated 10.09.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.1254/2013 on the file of
the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Arkalagud ('the Tribunal' for
short) questioning the quantum of compensation.
2. The parties are referred to as per their original
rankings before the Tribunal to avoid the confusion and for the
convenience of the Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased
met with an accident on 11.04.2013 and due to the injuries
sustained in the accident, he succumbed to the injuries. Hence,
the claim was made before the Tribunal that the deceased was
growing the commercial crops like coconut, ginger, potato and
tobacco in his land and earning the income of more than
Rs.20,000/- per month and maintaining his family. The Tribunal
considered the income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month
and assessed the loss of dependency of Rs.1,39,980/-. The
Tribunal also awarded Rs.50,000/- under other heads. Hence,
the present appeal is filed before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the income of
Rs.3,500/- per month inspite of RTC extracts are produced as
Exs.P.8 and 9 and the Tribunal has not considered atleast the
notional income. The compensation awarded under other heads
is also meagre. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2
Insurance Company would submit that the deceased was aged
about 70 years as on the date of the accident and hence the
Tribunal has rightly taken the income of Rs.3,500/- per month.
The Court also cannot accept that the deceased was earning
more than Rs.20,000/- per month as claimed in the claim
petition. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal.
6. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2,
the point that arise for the consideration of this Court is:
(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error
in not awarding just and reasonable
compensation?
7. Having perused the material available on record, the
claimant is the wife of the deceased and her age is mentioned as
65 years in the claim petition. No doubt, the claimant has
produced the RTC extracts Exs.P.8 and 9 to show that the
deceased was an agriculturist. When such being the case, the
Tribunal ought not to have taken the income of Rs.3,500/- per
month and even the notional income would be Rs.8,000/- per
month for the accident of the year 2013. Having considered the
age of the deceased as 70 years, this Court takes the income of
Rs.7,000/- per month and the relevant multiplier applicable
would be '5'.
Now the 'loss of dependency' is calculated as under:
Monthly income - Rs.7,000/-
--------------
Less: 1/2 towards - Rs.3,500/-
Personal expenses
- Rs.3,500/-
--------------
Loss of dependency = Rs.2,10,000/-
(Rs.3,500/- x 12 x 5) --------------
8. The claimant is also entitled for an amount of
Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads in view of the principles
laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY
SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. The
Apex Court has also observed that after expiry of every three
years from the date of that judgment, 10% is to be added to
Rs.70,000/- which comes to Rs.7,000/-. Hence, the claimant is
entitled for Rs.77,000/- towards conventional heads.
In all the claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.2,87,000/- as against Rs.1,90,000/-.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 10.09.2014 passed in
M.V.C.No.1254/2013 is modified granting
compensation of Rs.2,87,000/- as against
Rs.1,90,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till deposit.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the
compensation amount with interest within six
weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
