Karnataka High Court
Smt. Annapoornamma vs Karthik M on 29 November, 2021
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
M.F.A. NO. 417/2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANNAPOORNAMMA
W/O LATE SHANKAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
VOLAGARAHALLI VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANATH KUMARA K.M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARTHIK M
S/O SRI MURUGANAIDU
M R NO.2733
GANDHINAGAR
MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
M C ROAD
MANDYA 571 401.
3. SMT ROOPA R
W/O LATE S THIMMEGWODA
2
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT VOLAGARAHALLI VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-471 401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.LAKSHMINARASAPPA FOR
SRI A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
R-1 AND R-3 ARE SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.9.2013
PASSED IN MVC.01/2013 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE (Sr.Dn.) AND MACT AT MADDUR AND ENHANCE
THE COMPENSATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the respondent no.3
in MVC. No.01/2013 challenging the judgment and
award dated 27.9.2013 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge & MACT, Maddur, (for short hereinafter
referred to as 'Tribunal'), seeking enhancement of
compensation and apportionment in the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in
this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their
status and ranking before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimant that, on
25.7.2012 at about 6.30 p.m., husband of the
claimant-S.Thimmegowda was proceeding on a
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-11-W-9473
near Green Palace on Bangalore Mysuru Road. At
that time, a Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-03-HE-9277 being driven in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed to the
motorcycle of said Thimmegowda and consequently,
he sustained multiple injuries and he was shifted to
Government Hospital, Mandya for first aid and
thereafter, shifted to NIMHANS Bengaluru, for
further treatment. He survived for 4 days and
succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident.
4. It is the case of the claimant that the
deceased was working as Group-D employee at
Taluk Office, Mandya, and on account of the death of
her husband, she lost the sole bread earner and as
such, approached the Tribunal by filing a claim
petition in MVC. No.01/2013.
5. Claimant has arraigned mother of the
deceased as respondent no.3. On service of notice,
respondent no.1 unrepresented and placed ex parte.
Respondent No.2 entered appearance and filed a
detailed written statement denying the averments
made in claim petition. Respondent No.3- mother of
deceased also filed detailed written statement
contending that she spent more than Rs.3,50,000/-
towards medical expenses and she was also
depending upon the earnings of her deceased son
and as such, claimed apportionment of compensation
before the Tribunal.
6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings on
record, formulated issues for consideration. Claimant
was examined as PW-1 and she has produced 16
documents which are marked as Exs.P-1 to P-16.
Mother of the deceased was examined as RW-1 and
she produced 4 documents marked as Exs.R-1 to
R-4. The Tribunal, after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and award dated
27.09.2013, allowed the claim petition in part and
awarded Rs.22,95,400/- with interest at the rate of
6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The
Tribunal, apportioned the quantum of compensation
and awarded Rs.20,00,000/- in favour of claimant
and the remaining Rs.2,95,400/- was awarded to
respondent No.-3 mother of deceased. Being
aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal, respondent No.3-mother of
deceased presented this appeal.
7. I have heard Sri Sanath Kumar, learned
counsel representing the appellant and Sri K.S.
Lakshminarasappa, learned counsel representing
Sri A.M.Venkatesh for respondent No.2. Claimant-
respondent 3 herein served, unrepresented.
8. Sri Sanath Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant contended that the award made by the
Tribunal regarding consortium requires
enhancement. He further contended that the
deceased was working as Government employee in
Taluk Office, Mandya, and after his demise, the
claimant (respondent no.3 herein) secured
appointment under compassionate ground and
therefore, apportionment of award made by the
Tribunal requires to be interfered with in this appeal,
taking into account the interest of the mother of the
deceased who is aged and a widow.
9. Per contra, Sri Lakshminarasappa, learned
counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that the
award of Tribunal is just and proper and does not
call for interference.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records. It is not in dispute
that the son of the appellant herein died in road
traffic accident that occurred on 25.7.2012 and he
was working as Group-D employee at Taluk Office,
Mandya. It is also not disputed that the claimant
(respondent no.3 herein) got an appointment on
compassionate ground. The Tribunal, taking into
account age of the claimant, has awarded
Rs.20,00,000/- in favour of the claimant. However,
the finding recorded by the Tribunal particularly at
paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment and award,
requires interference in this appeal.
11. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein
is also a widow and was depending on her deceased
son and therefore, in the ends of justice and taking
into account that the claimant-wife of deceased has
secured compassionate appointment inter alia
appellant herein has spent for the medical expenses
as set out in paragraph 14, I am of the view that the
claimant, being the wife of the deceased as also
appellant herein being the mother of the deceased,
are entitled to compensation. Further, both
claimant-wife, and the appellant herein, are entitled
to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium;
and for Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and
funeral expenses.
12. Accordingly, I am of view that the claimant-
wife of deceased and the appellant herein (mother of
deceased) are entitled for compensation in the ratio
of 70:30 respectively and same is re-determined as
follows:
Rs.
1) Loss of dependency 21,69,540/-
2) Loss of consortium 80,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- x 2)
3) Loss of estate 15,000/-
4) Funeral expenses 15,000/-
5) Medical expenses 70,861/-
--------------
Rs. 23,50,401/-
--------------
rounded off to Rs.23,50,400/- with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. The apportionment of the
compensation amount shall be in the ratio of 70:30,
to the claimant-wife and the appellant herein,
respectively.
13. The appeal is disposed in the above terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE
vgh*
