Karnataka High Court
Sri.Dudanaik S/O Babrurinaik vs Sri. Anand Naik B S/O Shamy Naik on 8 February, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
M.F.A.102005/2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 08 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
M.F.A.No.102005/2020 (MV)
BET WEEN:
1 . SRI.DUDANAIK
S/O BABURINAIK,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE WORK,
R/O: WARD NO:5,
NEAR SEVALAL TEMPLE,
KOMARANAHALLI THANDA,
NAGATHI BASAPUR,
TQ: HADAGALI,
DIST: BALLARI.
2 . SMT. DUGLI BAI
W/O DODA NAIK,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE WORK,
R/O: WARD NO:5,
NEAR SEVALAL TEMPLE,
KOMARANAHALLI THANDA,
NAGATHI BASAPUR,
TQ: HADAGALI,
DIST: BALLARI.
3 . KUM. R SUMA BAI
D/O DODA NAIK,
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE WORK,
R/O: WARD NO:5,
NEAR SEVALAL TEMPLE,
KOMARANAHALLI THANDA,
NAGATHI BASAPUR, TQ: HADAGALI,
DIST: BALLARI.
2 M.F.A.102005/2020
4 . KUM. D PAVITHRA
D/O DODA NAIK,
AGE: 15 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: WARD NO:5,
NEAR SEVALAL TEMPLE,
KOMARANAHALLI THANDA,
NAGATHI BASAPUR,
TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.
(SINCE MINOR REPT BY HER
MINOR GUARDIAN I.E. NATURAL
FATHER I.E. APPELLANT NO:1
DUDANAIK S/O BABURI NAIK) .. APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI. ANAND NAIK B.S
S/O SHAMY NAIK,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KOMARANAHALLI THANDA,
NAGATHI BASAPUR,
TQ: HADAGALI,
DIST: BALLARI.
2. MS DILIP BILDCON LTD.,
PLOT NO:5, INSIDE GOVIND
NARAYAN SINGH GATE,
CHUNABHATTI,
KOLAR ROAD,
BHOPAL-462101.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
ENKAY COMPLEX,
KESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI-580023.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
S S SUDAMABI BUILDING,
3 M.F.A.102005/2020
APMC ROAD,
EASTERN EXTN.,
RANEBENNUR-581115. ... RESPONDENTS
(By SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
BY SRI.B.V.SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.02.2020
PASSED IN MVC NO.587/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The claimants being not satisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded by the III
Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T.,
Ranebennur in M.V.C.No.587/2018 vide its judgment
and award dated 15 t h February 2020 have preferred
this appeal.
2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with
the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.
4 M.F.A.102005/2020
3. The parties to this appeal are referred to by
their rankings before the Tribunal for the sake of
convenience.
4. The relevant facts of the case as revealed
from the records are:
On 21.10.2017, one Sukru Raj, the son of
claimants Nos.1 and 2 was returning to his native
village along with pillion rider in a motor cycle
bearing registration No.KA-35/S-8136 after
purchasing provision items at Basapur. When the
motor cycle reached near the land of one
T.M.Chandraiah on Hadagali-Harapanahalli road, the
rider of the motor cycle dashed against the Tanker
lorry bearing registration No.MP-04/HE-0467, which
was negligently parked on the middle of the road
without showing any signal. In the said accident, the
rider of the motor cycle Sukru Raj as well as the
pillion rider suffered grievous injuries and Sukru Raj
succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It is under
these circumstances, the claimants, who are the
5 M.F.A.102005/2020
parents and unmarried sisters of the deceased, had
filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Tribunal had partly
allowed the claim petition and awarded a total
compensation of `13,12,600/- and had held that the
deceased Sukru Raj was also guilty of contributory
negligence which was assessed at 50%. In effect,
the Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled for
50% of the amount awarded with interest @ 7% per
annum from the date of petition till realization.
5. The present appeal is filed
by the claimants only insofar as it relates to quantum
of compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits
that the deceased was a bachelor and the accident is
of the year 2017. The notional income of the
deceased has been considered at `8,000/- per month,
which is not in compliance of the income chart
maintained by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority for the purpose of disposal of motor
6 M.F.A.102005/2020
accident cases before the Lok Adalat. He submits
that thereby it has resulted in grant of lower
compensation and accordingly prays to allow the
appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the other side
argued in support of the impugned judgment and
award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. I have carefully considered the rival
arguments advanced on both sides and also perused
the material available on record.
9. The only question that arises for
consideration in this appeal is with regard to the
adequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about
22 years as on the date of accident and the accident
had taken place in the year 2017. Therefore, the
notional income of the deceased ought to have been
considered at `10,250/- per month as per the income
chart maintained by the Karnataka State Legal
7 M.F.A.102005/2020
Services Authority. Out of the said income, 40% of
the same is required to be taken into consideration
towards loss of future prospects of the deceased and
if the proper multiplier being '18' is applied, the
claimants are entitled for a compensation of
` 15,49,800/- towards loss of dependency.
10. Towards loss of love and affection, the
claimants are entitled for a sum of `40,000/- each as
compensation and in addition to the same, the
claimants are entitled for a sum of `30,000/- towards
loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore,
under the conventional heads, the claimants are
entitled for a total sum of `1,90,000/-. The
claimants are therefore entitled for a total
compensation of ` 17,39,800/- as against
`13,12,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. Since 50% of
contributory negligence has been attributed to the
deceased, the claimants would be entitled for 50% of
compensation amount, which would come to
8 M.F.A.102005/2020
`8,69,900/- and the same shall carry interest @ 7%
per annum from the date of petition till realization.
11. Since the liability to pay 50% of the award
amount is not disputed by respondent Nos.2 and 4,
who were saddled with the liability to pay the
compensation amount, respondent No.4 being the
insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit
the balance amount of compensation with interest
before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
12. The award passed by the Tribunal insofar it
relates to apportionment, disbursement and deposit,
etc., shall remain unaltered and would be applicable
even to the enhanced amount of compensation.
The Miscellaneous first appeal is partly allowed.
The judgment and award dated 15 t h February 2020
passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Additional M.A.C.T., Ranebennur in
M.V.C.No.587/2018, is accordingly modified.
9 M.F.A.102005/2020
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/-
