Karnataka High Court
Smt Vasanthi vs Jayasheela Alias Surendra on 23 February, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
M.F.A. CROB. No.38/2009(MV)
C/W
M.F.A. CROB. No.39/2009(MV)
In M.F.A. CROB.38/2009
BETWEEN:
Smt. Vasanthi
Aged about 38 years,
W/o Sri Vittal Poojary,
D/o Late Neelu Poojary,
R/at Varanga Village,
Karkala Taluk, Udupi District. ... Cross Objector
(By Ms. Nazeera M. Mulla, Adv. for
Sri Pavana Chandra Shetty, H., Adv.)
AND:
1. Jayasheela Alias Surendra,
Aged about 31 years,
S/o Raju Poojarthy,
R/at Kalathur village,
Post Santhekatte, Udupi Taluk.
2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
P.B.No.29, A.S.Road,
Srinivasa Complex,
Karkala. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri A.N.Krishnaswamy, Adv. for R2;
R1 - Notice D/W)
2
In M.F.A. CROB. No.39/2009
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Padamavathi,
Aged about 44 years,
2. Sri Sadashiva D.Salian,
Aged about 41 years,
3. Smt. Vasanthi,
Aged about 37 years,
4. Smt. Lakshmi Poojary,
Aged about 29 years,
All are residing at Varanga Village,
Karkala Taluk. ... Cross Objectors
(By Ms. Nazeera M. Mulla, Adv. for
Sri Pavana Chandra Shetty, H., Adv.)
AND:
1. Jayasheela Alias Surendra,
Aged about 31 years,
S/o Raju Poojarthy,
R/at Kalathur village,
Post Santhekatte, Udupi Taluk.
2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
P.B.No.29, A.S.Road,
Srinivasa Complex,
Karkala. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri A.N.Krishnaswamy, Adv. for R2;
V/o dt:5.8.13 notice to R1 is dispensed with)
3
M.F.A. CROB.No.38/2009 is filed under Section 41 Rule
22 of CPC against the Judgment and award dated 30.05.2008
passed in MVC No.80/2007 on the file of The Member, Addl.
MACT & Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Udupi, partly allowing the
reference petition for enhanced compensation and seeking
further enhancement of compensation.
M.F.A. CROB.No.39/2009 is filed under Section 41 Rule
22 of CPC against the Judgment and award dated 30.05.2008
passed in MVC No.83/2007 on the file of The Member, Addl.
MACT & Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Udupi, partly allowing the
reference petition for enhanced compensation and seeking
further enhancement of compensation.
These cross-objections coming on for Admission, this
day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
These cross-objections are at the instance of the
claimants calling in question the correctness of the common
judgment and award dated 30.05.2008 in M.V.C. No.80/2007
and in M.V.C. No.83/2007 by the Additional Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal and Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Udupi.
2. Brief facts are that, on 23.05.2006 deceased Swathi
and Neelu Poojarthi along with some others were traveling in
a Maxi Cab bearing Reg.No.KA.20.7445 to Tirupathi and on
account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
said vehicle, it met with an accident resulting in their death.
3. Learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence and
hearing the learned counsel on both sides, has awarded
compensation of Rs.2,58,000/- and Rs.2,23,000/-,
respectively, to the respondents in M.V.C. No.80/2007 and
M.V.C. No.83/2007 with interest at 8% per annum.
4. The Insurance Company had unsuccessfully challenged
the above judgment and award in M.F.A. 8952/2008 and
connected matters which came to be dismissed by the
judgment dated 13.06.2011 by this Court.
5. The only contention advanced in both the cases is, the
compensation awarded is on the lower side and it is required
to be enhanced.
6. I have carefully perused the records and I have given
my anxious consideration to the submissions made by
Ms.Nazeefa M.Mulla, learned Counsel for the appellants and
Sri A.N.Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel for the respondent-
Insurance Company.
7. In M.V.C. No.80/2007, the claim is on account of the
death of one Swathi who was aged 10 years at the time of
the accident, made by her mother. Learned Tribunal has
awarded Rs.2,58,000/-. My attention was drawn to a recent
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAJENDRA SINGH
& OTHERS VS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED &
OTHERS (AIR 2020 SC 3144). In the said case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has considered the compensation to be
awarded for the death of a 12 year old girl. Upon
consideration of various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the award made by the learned Tribunal in that case in
a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- came to be confirmed. Accordingly, in
this case also, I am of the view that the claimant is entitled to
be awarded Rs.2,95,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of the petition till the date of payment.
8. In so far as the other appeal which raises out of
M.V.C.No.83/2007 is concerned, the facts established before
the learned Tribunal shows that the deceased Neelu Poojarthi
was aged 60 years at the time of her death. The appropriate
multiplier applicable to her case is '9'. Learned Tribunal has
taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/-. As
per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority, the notional income fixed for the year 2008 is
Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, it would be appropriate to take the
notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month.
Since she had left behind four children, 1/3rd of her income is
required to be deducted towards her personal expenses. She
died at the age of 60 years, and therefore, no addition to be
made towards loss of future prospects. Accordingly, the loss
of dependency is Rs.3,000/- x 1/3 x 12 x 9 = 2,16,000/-.
9. Since she had left behind four children, under the head
loss of parental consortium, Rs.1,60,000/- (40 X 4) is
required to be awarded. Another sum of Rs.30,000/- is
required to be awarded under the conventional head. Thus,
total awardable compensation to the claimants is
Rs.4,06,000/-. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.2,23,000/-. Therefore, enhanced compensation is
Rs.1,83,000/-.
10. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the
rate of 6 % per annum from the date of petition till the date
of payment. The respondent-Insurance Company shall pay
the compensation and the enhanced compensation within a
period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the certified
copy of this judgment. Both the Cross Objections are allowed
to the extent stated above.
11. Records to be transmitted to the learned Tribunal
forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
