Karnataka High Court
Padma vs Sannapapegowda on 27 January, 2022
Bench: P S Kumar, Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
M.F.A. NO.8417 OF 2019 (MV)
BETWEEN :
1. PADMA
W/O RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
2. RAMANNA C
S/O CHIKKASHETTARU
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
3. SHWETHA R
D/O RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.575
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD
YERAGANAHALLI
MYSURU-570 011 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. K. SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. SANNAPAPEGOWDA
S/O LATE KULLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT SIDDABHOGANAHALLI
2
VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434
2. ORIENTAL INS. CO., LTD.,
BY ITS MANAGER
D.O.-II, MUSLIM HOSTEL COMPLEX
1ST FLOOR, OPP. FIRE BRIGADE
1ST MAIN, SARASWATHIPURAM
MYSURU-570 009. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. LAKSHMI NARASAPPA FOR
SHRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-SERVED)
....
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED.22.04.2019 PASSED IN
MVC NO. 958/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU, 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 is presented by the claimants in
M.V.C. No.958/2015 on the file of the Additional Small
Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru seeking to set-aside
the Judgment and Award dated April 22, 2019, so far as
exonerating the Insurance Company and for enhancement of
compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be
referred as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Heard Shri. K.Shantharaj, learned Advocate for
appellants- claimants and Shri. K.S. Lakshmi Narasappa,
learned Advocate for second respondent - Insurer.
4. Shri. K.Shantharaj, for claimants submitted that:
• deceased Tyagaraju, son of claimants No.1 and 2
sustained grievous injuries when his Motor Cycle was
hit by the offending lorry on 29.07.2015. He was
admitted to Narayana Hrudayalaya Surgical Hospital
Pvt. Ltd., Mysore and he succumbed to injuries on the
same day;
• the Tribunal has erred in taking notional income of the
deceased as Rs.7,500/- p.m. where as, this Court has
consistently considered the notional income of an able-
bodied person in the year 2015 as Rs.9,000/- p.m.;
• the future prospects at 40% has not been added while
computing the loss of dependency;
• the Tribunal has erred in absolving the Insurer. The
finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down
in Rani and others Vs. National Insurance Company
Limited and others1.
5. Shri. Lakshmi Narasappa, learned Advocate for
the Insurer submitted that the Tribunal has erred in
deducting 1/3rd of the income, while calculating loss of
dependency, though it has noted the decision in the case of
Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2.
Shri. Shantharaj, opposed the said submission on the ground
that the Insurer has not challenged that finding.
7. Shri. Lakshmi Narasappa also contended that in
motor vehicles case, just and appropriate compensation will
(2018)8 SCC 492 (paras 10 and 12)
(2009)6 SCC 121
have to be awarded in accordance with law and this Court
may take note of the apparent error.
8. Appellant is right in his submission that this Court
has been consistently considering the notional income of an
able-bodied person as Rs.9,000/- per month.
9. Admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor. As held
in Sarala Varma's case, 50% of his earning will have to be
deducted while computing loss of dependency. Deceased was
aged 18 years, hence the applicable multiplier is 18 and future
prospects is to be added at 40%. First and second claimants are
parents and third claimant is sister of the deceased. Claimants
are also entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses.
10. Thus, compensation towards loss of dependency is
worked out as follows;
The monthly notional income works out to Rs.12,600/-
(Rs.9,000+3,600) [by adding 40% towards future prospects
(Rs.9,000*40%=Rs.3,600)]. After deducting 50%, it works out to
Rs.6,300/- per month (Rs.12,600*50%). The Annual notional
income works out to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.6,300*12). By applying 18
as multiplier, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.13,60,800/-
(Rs.75,600*18).
An amount of Rs.40,000/- each is to be awarded towards
consortium for the parents of deceased. In view of the decision in
case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited V/s. Nanu
Ram and others3 consortium is to be awarded to sister of the
deceased also.
11. The total compensation is re-computed as follows;
Sl.No Description Amount
a. Loss of dependency Rs.13,60,800
b. ADD: Consortium (Rs.40,000*3) Rs.1,20,000
c. ADD: Conventional heads; Rs.30,000
funeral expenses, etc.,
d. ADD:Medical expenses Rs.25,000
e. Total (a+b+c+d) Rs.15,35,800
f. LESS: Compensation awarded Rs.12,05,000
by the Tribunal
Enhanced Compensation (e-f) Rs.3,30,800
(2018)18 SCC 130
12. So far as the liability is concerned,
Shri. Shantharaj is right in his submission that the Tribunal
has erred in absolving the Insurer on the ground that lorry
did not have permit. The lorry was registered in Kerala State
and did not have permit to ply in Karnataka State. The
accident has occurred in Mysuru. This issue is covered in
Rani's case supra. Hence, the Insurer shall be liable to fulfill
the Award with liberty to recover the same by executing the
decree in these proceedings.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part by holding that
claimants are entitled for a total compensation of
Rs.15,35,800/-, as against Rs.12,05,000/- 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.3,30,800/-; and
(ii) Insurer shall pay the entire compensation amount
of Rs. 15,35,800/- with interest at 6% p.a., within
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order, with liberty to recover the same from
the owner of the offending vehicle by executing
decree in these proceedings. Disbursement shall be
made as directed by the Tribunal.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS
