Karnataka High Court
K Anusha W/O Late Venkatesh vs Uma W/O Rajanna on 23 August, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
MFA No. 21792 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21792 OF 2012 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. K ANUSHA W/O LATE VENKATESH,
AGED: ABOUT 27 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE,
2. THIMMANNA S/O LATE GANGAPPA,
AGED: ABOUT 59 YEARS,
3. GANGAMMA W/O THIMMANNA,
AGED: ABOUT 53 YEARS,
4. MINOR YOGESH @ YOGANANDA
S/O LATE VENKATESH, AGED: ABOUT 2 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER GUARDIAN
PETITIONER NO.1 SMT. K.ANUSHA
ALL RESIDING AT HOSADHADAGUR VILLAGE,
MOLAKALMUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HALAKUNDI VILLAGE, BELLARY
TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(MS. SOUBHAGYA S. YAKKUND, ADVOCATE APPEARED FOR SRI. Y.
LAKSHMIKATN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS)
AND:
1. SMT. UMA W/O RAJANNA,
AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING,
REG. NO.KA-02/AA-4849,
R/O: I D CROSS,2ND STAGE, 4TH BLOCK,
-2-
MFA No. 21792 of 2012
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
BANGALORE.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NO.4/3-1, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:01-12-2011 PASSED IN MVC
NO.694/2011 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT-XII, BELLARY, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCMENT COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
JUDGMENT
Heard the appellants counsel and also the counsel
appearing for the respondents.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants
before the tribunal is that, one Venkatesh who met with an
accident and on account of the grievous injuries, he
succumbed to the injuries and he was doing the business
and earning Rs.5,000/- and not added future prospectus
and also deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/4th and hence, the
present appeal is filed urging the said grounds.
MFA No. 21792 of 2012
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents would submits that, the future prospectus has
not been clamed and hence, the claimants are not entitled.
Having considered the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material the accident was occurred in the
year 2010 and in the absence of documentary evidence
regarding his income, the tribunal ought to have taken
Rs.5,500/-, but has taken Rs.5,000/- and hence, he
requires interference and also this Court has to add future
prospectus and hence, 40% has to be added as future
prospectus. If it is added 40%, it comes to Rs.5,000/- +
Rs.2,400/- = Rs.7,700/- and there are wife and children
and there are four claimants and hence, 1/4th has to be
deducted and the tribunal committed an error in deducting
1/3rd and after deducting 1/4th, and applying relevant
multiplier, it comes to Rs.11,08,800/-. Apart from that,
the claimants are the wife and children and all are entitled
for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of
love and affection and also consortium and also entitled
MFA No. 21792 of 2012
for an amount of Rs.33,000/- under the head of funeral
expenses and loss of estate. In all the claimants are
entitled for compensation of Rs.13,01,800/-.
4. In view of the above discussions, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part.
The Judgment and award dated 01.12.2011 passed
in MVC No.694/2011 by the Member, MACT-XII, Ballary is
modified. The claimants are entitle for compensation of
Rs.13,01,800/- as against Rs.6,80,000/-, with interest as
awarded by the tribunal.
The Insurance company is directed to pay the
compensation within a period of six weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SVH
