Karnataka High Court
Smt Shwetha vs Syed Farooq 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.2337 OF 2020
(MV-D)
BETWEEN :
1. SMT.SHWETHA
W/O LATE VEERAPPA.G.H.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
HOUSEWIFE.
2. KUM.SUKANYA.G.V.
D/O LATE VEERAPPA.G.H.
AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS
3. KUM.SOUJANYA
D/O LATE VEERAPPA.G.H.
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
APPELLANTS 2 & 3 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER
& NATURAL GUARDIAN.
4. SMT.SHANTHAMMA DODDA GOWDRU
W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
MAJOR
ALL ARE R/O NO.29
NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE
ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD
HALEBATHI VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN - 577 566. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI N.K.SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. SYED FAROOQ
S/O SYED MAZHAR
MAJOR,
R/O LASHKAR MOHALLA
CHANNAGIRI TOWN AND TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
PIN - 577 213.
2. ABDUL RASHEED D H
S/O MOHAMMED HAYATH SAB
MAJOR
R/O LASHKAR MOHALLA
SIHINEERU BHAVI ROAD
CHANNAGIRI TOWN AND TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
PIN - 577 213.
3. ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL
INSURANCE CO.LTD.
NEAR SUPER MARKET
CHURCH ROAD
P.J. EXTENSION
DAVANAGERE CITY - 577 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS M.F.A. FILED U/S 173(1) OF M.V. ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2019 PASSED IN M.V.C.
NO.148/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-IV, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation is filed challenging the
judgment and award dated November 18, 2019,
in MVC No.148/2019 passed by the Principal Senor
Civil Judge and MACT-IV, Davanagere.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Heard Shri N.K.Siddeswara, learned advocate for
the claimants-appellants and Shri P.B.Raju, learned
advocate for third respondent-Insurer.
4. First claimant's husband Shri Veerappa sustained
grievous injuries in a road traffic accident on
10.11.2018, when a Ford Eco Sport Car bearing
Registration No.KA-17-Z-5042 coming from opposite
side dashed against the motorcycle bearing Registration
No.KA-17-EX-6802, which the deceased was riding.
Shri Veerappa succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
On adjudication of the claim petition, Tribunal has
awarded Rs.12,04,000/- with interest at 8% p.a., from
the date of petition till its realization.
5. Shri Siddeswara for the claimants urged three
contentions:
• Firstly, the accident has occurred in the year
2018 and this Court has consistently
considered the notional income of an able
bodied person in the year as Rs.12,500/-
per month whereas the Tribunal has
considered the notional income as
Rs.9,000/- per month;
• The Tribunal has erred in not adding 25%
towards future prospects; and
• The Tribunal has erred in not awarding
consortium in respect of claimants No.2,
3 & 4.
6. In reply, Shri Raju for the Insurer, with regard to
the notional income, in his usual fairness, submitted
that this Court has consistently considered the notional
earning capacity of an able bodied person in the year
2018 as Rs.12,500/- per month. He also submitted that
the Tribunal has erred in awarding 8% interest on the
award amount wherein this Court had consistently
awarding interest at the rate of 6% on the award
amount in all MVC cases.
7. Learned advocate for the claimants submitted that
deceased was working as a Security personnel in
Agastya Enterprises, Davanagere and earning
Rs.13,000/- per month. Deceased was also getting
agricultural income of Rs.2,00,000/- p.a. Learned
Tribunal has erred in considering the income of the
deceased as Rs.9,000/- p.m., and accordingly sought
for enhancement.
8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions
and perused the records.
9. Learned advocate for the claimants is right in his
submission that the Tribunal has not awarded
consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- in respect of
claimants No.2, 3 & 4 as held in the case of
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others Vs. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd1. In view of the law laid down
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others2, 25% of the earning
of the deceased has to be added towards future
prospects as the deceased was working as a Security
Personnel in Agastya Enterprises, Davanagere and
earning Rs.13,000/- per month.
10. Claimants have produced the salary certificates
marked as Exhibit P.8 and 17. Exhibits P.22 & 23 are
the Income Tax Returns for the years 2017-18 &
2018-19. Exhibits P.24 & 25 are the copies of wages
register for September and October, 2018.
11. Deceased was aged 44 years, hence the
applicable multiplier is 14 and future prospects is to be
added at 25%.
12. First claimant is the wife, claimants No.2 and 3
are minor daughters, claimant No.4 is the mother of the
AIR 2020 SC 3076.
(2017) 16 SCC 680
deceased. Hence, 1/4th is deductible from the earnings
of the deceased while calculating loss of dependency.
13. Thus, compensation towards loss of dependency is
worked out as follows;
The monthly notional income works out to
Rs.15,625/- (Rs.12,500+3,125) [by adding 25%
towards future prospects (Rs.12,500*25%=Rs.3,125)].
After deducting 1/4th, it works out to Rs.11,719/-
per month (Rs.15,625*3/4). The Annual notional
income works out to Rs.1,40,628/- (Rs.11,719*12).
By applying 14 as multiplier, the loss of dependency
works out to Rs.19,68,792/- (Rs.1,40,628*14).
14. The total compensation is re-computed as follows;
Sl.
Description Amount
No
a. Loss of dependency Rs.19,68,792
ADD:Consortium
b. Rs.1,60,000
(Rs.40,000*4)
ADD: Conventional heads;
c. Rs.30,000
funeral expenses, etc.,
d. Total (a+b+c) Rs.21,58,792
LESS: Compensation Rs.12,04,000
e.
awarded by the Tribunal
Enhanced Compensation (d-e) Rs.9,54,792
15. Learned advocate for insurer contended that in
motor vehicle compensation cases, interest is awarded
at 6%. Learned advocate for the claimants submitted
that insurer has not filed any appeal.
The compensation awarded must be just and
appropriate and we have re-computed the total
compensation. This Court has been consistently
awarding interest at 6%. Therefore, in our considered
view, awarding 6% interest throughout is just and
appropriate. Hence, the following;
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part by holding
that claimants are entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.21,58,792/-, as against
Rs.12,04,000/- 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 Rs9,54,792/-;
and
(ii) Insurer shall pay the entire
compensation amount of Rs.21,58,792/- with
interest at 6% p.a., excluding the amount paid
if any, 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
DH/AV
