Karnataka High Court
Smt. Padmamma vs Sri.Lokesha Y.S on 16 June, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.5176/2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PADMAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATESHA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
2. KUM. BOOMIKA
D/O LATE VENKATESHA
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS
3. MASTER AKASHA
S/O LATE VENKATESHA
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
APPELLANT NOS.2 & 3 BEING
MINORS REPRESENTED BY
GUARDIAN-MOTHER-1ST APPELLANT.
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF
BASTHIHALLI VILLAGE
SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI
HASSAN TALUK-573 220
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI LOKESHA Y.S.,
S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA
2
AGE: MAJOR,
YALAGUNDA VILLAGE,
RESIDENT OF SALAGAME HOBLI
HASSAN TALUK-573219.
2. THE MANAGER
RELIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HASSAN-573201.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.11.2016
PASSED IN MVC.NO.1470/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-I AT HASSAN, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH 'VIDEO
CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award
passed in M.V.C.No.1470/2013 dated 04.11.2016 on the file of
the Principal District Judge and M.A.C.T. at Hassan questioning
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased
Venkatesha died in a road traffic accident that took place on
25.05.2013. The deceased was an agriculturist and due to
untimely death of the deceased, the wife and the children have
lost the earning member of the family and hence, the claim
petition is filed seeking compensation.
3. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared
and contested the matter by filing objection statement. The
Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, allowed the claim petition in part granting
compensation of Rs.8,25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.
4. The claimants, in order to substantiate their claim,
examined a witness as P.W.1, who is the first claimant and
another independent witness as P.W.2 and got marked the
documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The respondent No.2-Insurance
Company examined two witnesses as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and got
marked the documents Exs.R1 to R3.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
claimants before this Court is that the Tribunal has committed an
error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per
month. The accident has taken place in the year 2013 and in
the absence of any proof with regard to income, the Tribunal
ought to have taken the notional income which would be
Rs.8,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the claimants
would also contend that the Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation towards future prospects and hence, it requires
interference of this Court while calculating loss of dependency.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2-Insurance Company would submit that no
document has been placed with regard to income of the
deceased. Hence, the Tribunal has taken the income of the
deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, the Tribunal has not
committed any error and it does not require any interference of
this Court.
7. Having heard the arguments of respective counsel
and also on perusal of the material placed on record, the points
that arise for consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error
in awarding just and reasonable compensation
and it requires interference of this Court?
(ii) What order?
Point No.(i):
8. Having considered the material on record, the
claimants are none other than the wife and children and they
have also placed the RTC Extract before the Tribunal to show
that the deceased was an Agriculturist. The Tribunal, while
calculating the income has taken the same at Rs.6,000/- per
month. In the absence of documentary proof with regard to the
income, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income.
The accident is of the year 2013 and the notional income for the
said year would be Rs.8,000/- per month. The Tribunal also
committed an error in not awarding compensation towards
future prospects and in the absence of definite income and
secured job, the Tribunal ought to have added 40% towards
future prospects. If the same is taken, it comes to Rs.3,200/-
(8,000x40/100). In total, the income of the deceased would be
Rs.11,200/- per month. Since, there are three claimants, 1/3rd
has to be deducted and if the same is deducted from
Rs.11,200/-, it comes to Rs.3,733/-. Hence, the monthly income
of the deceased would be Rs.7,467/- (11,200-3,733). The
deceased is aged about 35 years and the relevant multiplier
applicable is 18. Having taken the income of the deceased at
Rs.7,467/-, the loss of dependency works to Rs.13,44,060/-
(7,467x12x18). The claimants are also entitled for
compensation of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads in view
of the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case. Hence, In
all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of
Rs.14,14,060/- with interest at 6% per annum.
Point No.(ii)
9. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award of the Tribunal
passed in M.V.C.No.1470/2013 dated
04.11.2016 on the file of the Principal District
Judge and M.A.C.T. at Hassan is modified
granting compensation of Rs.14,14,060/- as
against Rs.8,25,000/- with interest at 6% per
annum.
(iii) The respondent No.2-insurance company is
directed to deposit the amount within six
weeks from today.
(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the TCR to
the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
