Karnataka High Court
Jayadevappa Somashekharappa ... vs Ramadas S/O Sonba Hargude on 22 February, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.101150/2016(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. JAYADEVAPPA SOMASHEKHARAPPA MUDAGAL
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
MUDAGAL CHAWL,
OPP DR SHIROL HOSPITAL,
R/O: GADAG.
2. SMT.NAGARATNA
W/O JAYADEVAPPA MUDAGAL
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
MUDAGAL CHAWL,
OPP DR.SHIROL HOSPITAL,
R/O: GADAG.
3. MISS .POOJA
D/O JAYADEVAPPA MUDAGAL
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
MUDAGAL CHAWL,
OPP DR.SHIROL HOSPITAL,
R/O: GADAG.
...APPELLANTS
(BY MS. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND FOR SRI. Y LAKSHMIKANT
REDDY, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. RAMADAS S/O SONBA HARGUDE
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF SCORPIA
LOHEGAON, SATHE NAGAR,
TQ: HAVELI, PUNA DISTRICT PUNE, MAHARASTRA.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
P B ROAD, TUPPAD BUILDING, GADAG.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.08.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.251/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT GADAG,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal is filed by the claimants
being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Gadag (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal', for brevity), in MVC No.251/2012 vide its
judgment and award dated 04.08.2015.
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission,
with the consent of learned counsel appearing on
both sides, the same is taken up for final disposal.
3. The parties to this appeal are referred to by
their rankings assigned to them before the Tribunal
for the sake of convenience.
4. The brief facts of the case that would be
relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal
are:
On 07.03.2012, the deceased Kartik along with
his friend Basavaraj Kulkarni, was proceeding in a
motorcycle from Gujarat border to Rajastan, the
driver of the offending Scorpio vehicle bearing
registration No.MH-12/E-1717, who was driving the
said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, came
from Mandar side and dashed against the motorcycle,
in which the deceased Kartik was traveling and
caused the accident. In the said accident, Kartik
suffered grievous injuries and subsequently he
succumbed to the same in the hospital.
It is under these circumstances, his parents and
sister have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation from
the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle
bearing registration No.MH-12/E-1717. The said claim
petition was partly allowed by the Tribunal and a
compensation amount of `2,30,000/- was awarded
with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
realization. Being not satisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded, the claimants are in appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants submits
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all
heads is on the lower side.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
the Insurer who does not dispute the liability to pay
compensation amount has argued in support of the
impugned judgment and award and submits that the
compensation awarded is just and proper and needs
no interference and accordingly, prays to dismiss the
appeal.
7. I have carefully considered the rival
arguments and also perused the material on record.
8. The only question that arises for
consideration in this appeal would be the adequacy of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the
claimants. The deceased Kartik, who is the son of
claimants No.1 and 2 and elder brother of claimant
No.3, was aged about 22 years as on the date of
accident. The claimant had contended that the
deceased had monthly income of `7,000/- per month.
His income was not proved by the claimants and
therefore, the Tribunal had taken his notional income
at `5,000/- per month. Having regard to the income
chart maintained by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority for the purpose of disposal of
motor vehicle accident cases, having regard to the
year of accident, the notional income of deceased
ought to have been taken at `6,500/- per month.
40% of the said income was required to be
considered towards loss of future prospects of the
deceased and out of the total income, half of the
same is required to be deducted towards personal
expenses of the deceased, as the deceased was a
bachelor. The proper multiplier applicable having
regard to the age of the deceased would be 18. In
the said event, the claimants would be entitled for a
sum of ` 9,82,000/- (`4,550 x 12 x 18) towards 'loss
of dependency'. The claimants are also entitled for a
sum of `40,000/- each towards 'loss of filial love and
affection'. In addition to the same, they are also
entitled for a sum of `30,000/- towards 'loss of
estate and funeral expenses'.
9. Therefore, in all the claimants are entitled
for a total compensation of ` 11,32,800/- as against
compensation of `2,34,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation
shall carry interest at 6% pa. from the date of
petition till realization. Since the liability is not
disputed, the Insurer of the offending car bearing
registration No.MH-12/E-1717 is directed to deposit
the enhanced 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.
The order passed by the Tribunal insofar as it
relates to disbursement and deposit, etc, shall be
applicable even to the enhanced amount of
compensation.
Miscellaneous first appeal is accordingly partly
allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab
