Karnataka High Court
N Radhamma vs G. Rangappa on 29 November, 2021
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
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.2806/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. N RADHAMMA
W/O LATE N.D.KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
2. K.RAMESH
S/O LATE N.D.KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
3. PADMAVATHI
D/O LATE N.D.KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O BURUJANAHATTY,
CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI B PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. G. RANGAPPA
S/O GALI VEERAPPA,
AGE:MAJOR,
OWNER OF TRACTOR TRAILER,
NO.KA-16/T-1540-41,
RESIDING AT HEGGERE,
CHALLAKERE TALUK PIN-577522.
2.THE BRANCH MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE,
2
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY BUILDING
VASAVI CIRCLE,
CHITRADURGA -577501.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G N RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 01.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.335/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM,
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IV,
CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimants against the
judgment and award dated 01.02.2013 passed in MVC
No.335/2006 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) &
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Chitradurga,
(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), seeking
enhancement of compensation and challenging the
negligence fixed by the Tribunal in an extent of 30% on
the part of the deceased-Manjunatha.
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. Facts in brief are that, on 06.09.2005, at about
9.15 p.m., son of claimant No.1-Manjunatha, was riding
motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-17/S-3200 from
Bengaluru towards, Chitradurga and when he reached near
K.R.Hally near Nityananda Ashrama on N.H.4, he dashed
to the parked tractor and trailer bearing registration No.
KA-16/ T-1540-41, and as result of the same, the said
Manjunatha died in the spot. It is case of the claimants
that they have lost the bread earner of the family and as
such, preferred, MVC No.335/2006 on the file of the
Tribunal, seeking compensation.
4. After service of summons, respondents entered
appearance and filed their detailed written statement
denying the averments made in the claim petition. On the
basis of the pleadings on record, the Tribunal has
formulated issues for its consideration. In order to
substantiate their case, claimant No.1 got examined
herself as PW1 and examined two other independent
witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked 22 documents
as Exs.P1 to P22. On the other hand, respondents
examined 3 witnesses as RW1 to RW3 and Investigating
Officer was examined as CW1 and produced 16
documents as Exs.R1 to R16.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and award dated 01.02.2013
allowed the claim petition in-part and awarded
compensation of Rs.6,67,800/- with interest at 6% per
annum from the date of the petition till realisation. Taking
into consideration the facts of the case, the Tribunal has
fixed the negligence to in an extent of 30% on the part of
the deceased. Being not satisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal and fastening 30%
of contributory negligence on the part of deceased-
Manjunatha, the claimants have presented this appeal.
6. Heard Sri.B.Pramod learned counsel appearing
for the appellants and Sri.G.N.Rajendra, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
7. Sri.Pramod, learned counsel for the appellants
contended that the Tribunal has computed the loss of
dependency based on the age of mother of the deceased
which requires to be interfered with in this appeal. He
further argued that as far as contributory negligence of
30% fixed on the deceased is concerned, the finding of the
Tribunal is erroneous and same requires to be interfered
with this appeal.
8. Sri.G.N.Rajendra, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2-Insurance Company sought to justify the
award made by the Tribunal.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and gone through the finding recorded by the
Tribunal and perused the records. It is not in dispute that
son of claimant No.1 died in a road traffic accident on
06.09.2005. On perusal of the discussion made by the
Tribunal and looking into Ex.R1- Spot Sketch, I am of the
view that the finding recorded by Tribunal, in fastening the
negligence on the part of the deceased in an extent of
30% is just and proper and does not call for interference in
this appeal.
10. In respect of the quantum of compensation is
concerned, I have carefully considered the finding recorded
by Tribunal and re-appreciated the material on record.
Deceased was a bachelor as on the date of accident and
as per records, he was earning Rs.14,000/- per month. In
view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in 2017 ACJ
2700, considering the age of the deceased, 40% is to be
added to the income towards future prospects.
Accordingly, the income would be Rs.19,600/-.
Undisputably, the deceased was aged about 26 years and
was a bachelor, therefore, 50% has to be deducted
towards the personal expenses of the deceased. In terms
of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS Vs. DELHI
TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported
in 2009 ACJ 1298, the appropriate multiplier would be
17. Accordingly, 'loss of dependency' would be
Rs.19,99,200/- (Rs.19,600/- x 12 x 17 x 50%). Claimants
1 and 3 are the mother and unmarried sister of the
deceased, accordingly, Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) is
awarded towards 'loss of consortium' and Rs.30,000/-
(Rs.15,000/- each) is awarded towards 'loss of estate and
funeral expenses'. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part;
ii) The total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is modified. Claimants are entitled
for total compensation of Rs.21,09,200/-
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realisation.
iii) Liability fixed by the Tribunal in an extent
of 30:70 is unaltered.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
