Karnataka High Court
Smt Indramma vs Sri Sanjeeva on 25 January, 2022
Bench: P S Kumar, Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6590 OF 2017 (MV)
BETWEEN :
1. SMT. INDRAMMA
W/O LATE CHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2. CHAITRA T.C.
D/O LATE CHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
HUTHA COLONY
BEHIND ZINCLINE
BHADRAVATHI
SHIMOGA DISTRICT ...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. SRI. SANJEEVA
S/O JOHNY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
DRIVER OF JEEP
R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
AVATHI HOBLI
CHIKMAGALURU TALUK-577 201
2
AT PRESENT
BYAGADAHALLI VILLAGE
2. SRI. I.M. POORNESH
S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
PLANTER
R/AT MALLESHWARA ESTATE
KAIMARA
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577 201
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
SHIVAMANGALA BUILDING
CHANNAGIRI ROAD
SHIMOGA-577 210 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. ANUP SEETHARAMA RAO FOR
SHRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R2-SERVED;
VIDE ORDER DTD.07.12.2018 NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED13.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1013/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, 7 JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT-11, BHADRAVATHI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
P.S. DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement
of compensation is filed challenging the judgment and
award dated April 13, 2017 in MVC.No.1013/2015 passed
by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC & Additional
MACT-11, Bhadravathi.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred
as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Heard Shri K.P.Bhuvan, learned advocate for the
claimants and Shri Anup Seetharama Rao, learned
advocate for the Insurer.
4. First claimant's son Kishan Kumar sustained grievous
injuries in a road traffic accident on June 14, 2015 when
the offending Jeep coming from opposite side dashed
against the motor cycle on which deceased was a pillion
rider. He sustained grievous injuries and admitted to the
Government Hospital, Chikmagaluru. Later, he was shifted
to Adarsha Hospital, Udupi. He succumbed to the injuries
on 27.06.2015. On adjudication of the claim petition,
Tribunal has awarded Rs.27,10,000/- with interest at
7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
5. Shri Bhuvan, learned advocate for the claimants
urged a solitary ground that the Tribunal has not added
50% income towards future prospects while computing the
loss of dependency.
6. In reply, Shri Anoop Rao, learned advocate for the
Insurer submitted the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd income
towards personal expenses of the deceased who was a
Bachelor aged about 23 years. According to him, the over
all compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
appropriate.
7. We have carefully considered rival submissions and
perused the records.
8. The claimants are mother and younger sister of the
deceased Kishan Kumar. The Tribunal has recorded that
claimant No.2 is a spinster and claimant No.1 has the sole
responsibility of maintaining her. In view of the facts of
the case, we are persuaded to accept the reasons recorded
by the Tribunal and hold that deducting 1/3rd income
towards personal expenses is appropriate.
9. So far as future prospects is concerned, learned
advocate for the appellants is right in his submission that
Tribunal ought to have added 50% income towards future
prospects, because, deceased was working as a Second
Division Assistant in the Department of Health and Family
Welfare. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others1 it is held that where the
deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of
40 years, 50% income should be added towards future
prospects.
10. Thus, compensation towards loss of dependency is
worked out as follows;
The monthly income works out to Rs.24,710/-
(Rs.16,473+8,237) [by adding 50% towards future
prospects (Rs.16473*50%=Rs.8,237). After deducting
1/3rd, it works out to Rs.16,473/- per month
(2017) 16 SCC 680 (para 59.4)
(Rs.24,710*2/3). The Annual notional income works out
to Rs.1,97,676/- (16,473*12). By applying 18 as
multiplier, the loss of dependency works out to
Rs.35,58,168/- (Rs.1,97,676*18).
11. Thus, total compensation is re-computed as follows;
Sl.N Description Amount
o
a. Loss of dependency Rs.35,58,168
b. ADD: Consortium (40,000*2) Rs.80,000
c. ADD: Conventional heads; Rs.30,000
funeral expenses, etc.,
d. Medical expenses Rs.2,85,744
d. Total (a+b+c+d) Rs.39,53,912
e. LESS: Compensation awarded Rs.27,10,000
by the Tribunal (d-e)
Enhanced Compensation Rs.12,43,912
12. Learned advocate for insurer contended that Tribunal
has awarded interest at 7% p.a. but this Court has been
consistently awarding 6% interest in motor vehicle
compensation cases. Learned advocate for the claimants
submitted that insurer has not filed any appeal. The
compensation must be just and appropriate and this court
has been consistently awarding interest at 6%. Therefore,
in our considered view, awarding 6% interest throughout is
just and appropriate.
13. Hence, the following;
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part by holding
that claimants are entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.39,53,912/-, as against
Rs.27,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, payable
with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of filing
claim petition till the date of deposit.
The enhanced compensation is Rs.12,43,912/-
and
(ii) Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the entire compensation
amount of Rs.39,53,912/- with interest at 6%
p.a., and respondent No.3-Insurer shall deposit
the above sum, excluding the amount already
deposited, within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Disbursement shall
be made as directed by the Tribunal.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Yn
