Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shankaramma vs Sri Shankar on 9 November, 2021
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar, P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3372 OF 2020 (MV)
BETWEEN :
1. SMT. SHANKARAMMA
W/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
2. MASTER. YESU RATHNA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
3. MASTER. VIJAY RATHNA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS
4. MASTER. JAISHIVA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS
5. MASTER. SANTHOSH
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS
SINCE THE APPELLANTS No.2 TO 5
ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY
2
NATURAL GUARDIAN
THEIR MOTHER SMT. SHANKARAMMA
APPELLANTS No.1 TO 5 ARE
RESIDING AT C/O DEVARAJU
K.THAGANAHALLI NEW LAYOUT
BIDADI TOWN
RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 109
6. SRI. BADANAPURI VARAGAIAH
@ VARAGAIAH
S/O LATE B. VENKATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT S.T COLONY
PETA AGRAHARAM
VIJIREDDY PALLI
KOSALU PATNUM MANDAL
CHITTOR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH-517 124 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. SRI SHANKAR
S/O LATE S.R. SIDDAMALLAIAH
MAJOR
NO.CH-44, 5TH MAIN
6TH CROSS
SARASWATHIPURAM
MYSURU-570 009
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE
T.P.HUB, 5TH AND 6TH FLOORS
KRISHIKA SAMAJA BUILDING
HUDSON CIRCLE
OPP:BBMP HEAD QUARTERS
3
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. H.C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SHRI. B.D. KRISHNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.
367/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM,
MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-5), PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
P.S. DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants in MVC
No.367/2018 on the file of VIII Additional Small Causes
Judge and the MACT (SCCH-5), Bengaluru, challenging the
quantum of compensation awarded vide judgment and
award dated 16.08.2019 by the Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be
referred as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Heard Shri K.P.Bhuvan, learned advocate for
claimants-appellants, Shri B.D.Krishnegowda, learned
advocate for first respondent and
Shri H.C.Vrushabhendraiah, learned advocate for the
insurer, second respondent.
4. First claimant's husband Ramaiah sustained
grievous injuries in a road traffic accident on 23.08.2017
when a Maruti Suzuki D'zire Car bearing No.KA-09-C-2913
coming from opposite side dashed against him while he was
crossing Bengaluru-Mysuru Road. Ramaiah succumbed to
the injuries on the way to the hospital. On adjudication of
the claim petition, Tribunal has awarded Rs.16,20,000/-.
5. Learned advocate for the claimants submitted
that deceased was making and selling Toys and earning
Rs.25,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal has erred in
considering the income of the deceased as
Rs.8,000/- p.m., and accordingly sought for enhancement.
6. Claimants have not produced any document
before the Tribunal to substantiate their claim that Ramaiah
was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. In the absence of any
proof of income, this Court has consistently considered the
notional income of an able bodied person in the year 2017
as Rs.11,000/- p.m.
7. Deceased was aged 38 years, hence the
applicable multiplier is 15 and future prospects is to be
added at 40%.
8. First claimant is the wife, claimants No.2 to 5 are
minor children and claimant No.6 is father of deceased.
Hence, 1/4th is deductible from the earnings of the
deceased while calculating loss of dependency.
9. Thus, compensation towards loss of dependency
is worked out as follows:
The monthly notional income works out to Rs.15,400/-
(Rs.11,000+4,400) [by adding 40% towards future
prospects (Rs.11,000*40%=Rs.4,400)]. After deducting
1/4th, it works out to Rs.11,550/- per month
(Rs.15,400*3/4). The Annual notional income works out to
Rs.1,38,600/-(11,550*12). By applying 15 as multiplier,
the loss of dependency works out to Rs.20,79,000/-
(Rs.1,38,600*15).
10. The compensation is re-computed as follows;
Sl.No Description Amount
a. Loss of dependency Rs.20,79,000
b. ADD: Consortium (40,000*6) Rs.2,40,000
c. ADD: Conventional heads; Rs.30,000
funeral expenses, etc.,
d. Total (a+b+c) Rs.23,49,000
e. LESS: Compensation awarded Rs.16,20,000
by the Tribunal (d-e)
Enhanced Compensation Rs.7,29,000
11. Learned advocate for insurer contended that in
motor vehicle compensation cases, interest is awarded at
6%. Learned advocate for the claimants submitted that
insurer has not filed any appeal. Therefore, rate of interest
cannot be reduced at the instance of insurer.
12. The compensation awarded must be just and
appropriate and we have re-computed the total
compensation. This Court has been consistently awarding
interest at 6%. Therefore, in our considered view,
awarding 6% interest throughout is just and appropriate.
13. Hence, the following;
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part by holding that
claimants are entitled for a total compensation of
Rs.23,49,000/- as against Rs.16,20,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal, payable with interest at 6% p.a.,
from the date of filing claim petition till the date of
deposit. The enhanced compensation is
Rs.7,29,000/- (Rs.23,49,000-Rs.16,20,000); and
(ii) Insurer shall pay the entire compensation
amount of Rs.23,49,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.,
excluding the amount paid if any, within eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Disbursement shall be made as directed by
the Tribunal.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Yn.
