Karnataka High Court
Yallappa S/O. Dundappa Savadi vs Sadasiv B. Yettinamani on 7 February, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
M.F.A.22534/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
M.F.A. No .22534/2013 (MV)
BET WEEN
1 . SHRI.YALLA PPA S/O. DU NDAPPA SAVADI
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O. HARUGERI, TQ: RAIB AG,
DIST: B ELGAU M.
2 . SMT.SUNANDA W/O. YALLAPPA SAVA DI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOU SEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HARUGERI, TQ: RAIB AG DIST : B ELGAU M.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . SRI.SADAS IV B . YETTINAMANI
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O. AT POST: MUGALKHOD,
TQ: RAIB AG, DIST: B ELGAUM .
2 . THE DIV IS IONAL MANAGER
NAT IONAL INSU RANCE COMPANY LIMIT ED,
THROUGH ITS DIVIS IONA L OFF ICE,
RAMDEV GALL I, B ELGAU M. ...RESP ONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.N.RAICHU R, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE J UDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.10.2012 PASS ED IN
MVC No.1101/ 2011 ON T HE FILE OF THE MEMB ER, MACT -I
AND PRL.DISTR ICT JU DGE B ELGAU M, PART LY ALLOWING
2
THE CLAIM PET IT ION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEA L COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The instant app eal is filed by the claimants being
not satisfied with the q uantum of comp ensation
award ed by the M.A.C.T.-I, Belg aum in
M.V.C.No.1101/2011 vid e its judgment and award
dated 25 t h October 2012.
2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with
the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the
parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.
3. The parties to this appeal are referred to by
their rankings before the Tribunal for the sake of
convenience.
4. Brief facts of the case that would be
relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal
are:
On 20.04.2011 at about 16:20 hours, when the
son of the claimants deceased Anil aged about 10
years was returning from his tuition class in his
bicycle, the offending Tractor, which was driven in a
rash and negligent manner, had dashed against the
bicycle of the deceased Anil near Karnataka Electrical
Stores at Harugeri village and had caused the
accident. The deceased, who had suffered grievous
injuries in the said accident, had succumbed to the
same on the spot. Immediately thereafterwards he
was shifted to a nearby hospital wherein he was
declared brought dead. The claimants, who are the
parents of the deceased minor, had filed a claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, claiming compensation of `5,00,000/- with
interest from the owner and insurer of the offending
Tractor. The Tribunal had partly allowed the claim
petition and awarded a compensation of `3,50,000/-
with interest @ 9% per annum. Being not satisfied
with the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the claimants are before this court.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants submits
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on
the lower side. He has relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kurvan
Ansari and Others -vs- Shyam Kishore Murmu
and Others 1 and submits that in the said case, in
respect of an accident of the year 2004 where the
deceased was a minor boy aged about 7 years, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had awarded a total
compensation of `4,70,000/- and the said judgment
would be squarely applicable to the present case for
the reason that even in this case, the deceased was
aged about 10 years and the accident is of the year
2011 and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have at
least awarded compensation as awarded in Kurvan
Ansari's case.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
insurer submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Reshma Kumari and Others -vs-
2022 ACJ 166
Madan Mohan and Another 2 has taken the notional
income of a non-earning member at `15,000/- per
annum and the said judgment has been followed by
this court in number of cases and therefore, even in
the present case, the annual income of the deceased
minor is required to be considered at `15,000/-. He
submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently
in the case of United India Insurance Co.Ltd. -vs-
Rajendra Singh and Others 3 had considered the
annual income of the minor at `15,000/- and
accordingly, prays to award compensation even in the
present case.
7. I have carefully appreciated the arguments
addressed on both sides and also perused the
material available on record.
8. It is not in dispute that in the accident that
had taken place on 20.04.2011, the minor son of the
claimants, who had suffered fatal injuries, had died
2013 ACJ 1253
(2000) 3 SCC 581
on the spot and in the said accident, the Tractor
belonging to the first respondent and insured by the
second respondent was involved. The deceased was
aged about 10 years as on the date of accident and
he was a student. The accident is of the year 2011.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kurvan
Ansari, wherein the deceased minor was aged about
7 years and the accident was of the year 2004, has
considered the notional income of the non-earning
member aged upto 10 years at `25,000/- per annum.
Though the learned counsel for the insurer has
contended that having regard to the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma
Kumari and also Rajendra Singh (supra), the
notional income is required to be taken at
Rs.15,000/- per annum, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Kurvan Ansari's case has held that
fixing notional income at `15,000/- per annum for
non-earning member is not just and reasonable. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case taking into
consideration the inflation, devaluation of the rupee
and cost of living, has taken the notional income of
the deceased minor, who was aged about 7 years, at
`25,000/- per annum. The proper multiplier
applicable having regard to the age of the deceased
would be '15'. In the said event, the claimants would
be entitled for a sum of `3,75,000/- as compensation
towards loss of dependency. They are entitled for a
further sum of `40,000/- each towards loss of love
and affection and another `15,000/- towards funeral
expenses. Therefore, in all, the claimants are
entitled for a sum of ` 4,70,000/- as compensation.
The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition
till realization.
9. Since the liability of the insurer is not in
dispute, the enhanced amount of compensation with
interest is directed to be deposited by the second
respondent-insurer before the Tribunal within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
10. The award passed by the Tribunal insofar it
relates to apportionment, disbursement and deposit
shall be applicable even to the enhanced amount of
compensation.
The Miscellaneous first appeal is partly allowed.
The judgment and award dated 7 t h June 2012 passed
in M.V.C.No.1101/2011 by the M.A.C.T.-I and
Principal District Judge, Belgaum, is accordingly
modified.
In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2022
does not survive for consideration. Hence, it stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KNM/-
