Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sujatha W/O. Late ... vs Sri. Nagendra K S/O. K Mareppa on 13 January, 2022
Bench: S G Pandit, Anant Ramanath Hegde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MFA NO.100351 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUJATHA
W/O LATE BOMMAYYAGARI PARUSURAM,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEWIFE.
2. BOMMANNA S/O LATE B. MAREPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
3. SMT. THIMMAKKA W/O BOMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
4. MINOR MAHALAKSHMI
W/O LATE BOMMAYYAGARI PARUSURAM
AGED ABOUT 3 MONTHS BABY
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN
AND MOTHER SMT. SUJATHA.
ALL ARE R/O PALTHUR VILLAGE,
URAVAKONDA TALUK,
ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDING AT HALAKUNDI VILLAGE,
BALLARI TQ & DIST-583101.
...APPELLANTS
2
(BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY & Y. MALATHIREDDY,
ADVOCATES)
AND
1. SRI. NAGENDRA K. S/O K. MAREPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC:DRIVER
OF APSRTC BUS BEARING REG.NO.AP-11/Z-4616,
BADGE NO.7919, R/O 11-2-177,
NAIK NAGAR, ARAVIND NAGAR,
ANANTHAPUR-515001.
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
URAVAKONDA DEPOT,
URAVAKONDA, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
(R1-DISPENSED WITH)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
28.10.2015 PASSED BY THE III MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, AT BALLARI IN MVC NO.358/2015 BY ENHANCING
THE COMPENSATION AND AWARDING TOTAL
COMPENSATION OF RS.80,00,000/- AND PASS SUCH OTHER
ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, it is taken
up for final disposal, with the consent of learned counsel
for both the parties.
2. The appellants/claimants are before this Court
praying for enhancement of compensation, not being
satisfied with the compensation awarded under judgment
and award dated 28.10.2015 passed in MVC No.358/2015
on the file of the learned Member, MACT-III, Ballari
(for short, 'Tribunal').
3. The claimants, who are the wife, parents and
minor daughter of the deceased Bommayyagiri Parasuram
filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the accidental
death of deceased Parasuram, which took place on
04.01.2015 involving Auto bearing registration No.
KA-35/A-2894 and APSRTC Bus bearing registration
No.AP-11/Z-4616. The accident and accidental death of
deceased Parasuram are not in dispute in this appeal.
4. Smt. Y. Malathireddy, learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants would submit that the income of the
deceased assessed at Rs.5,000/- per month is on the lower
side and the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income
of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month taking note of the
chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority (for short, 'KSLSA'). It is submitted that the
Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards
future prospects, since the claimants would be entitled to
future prospects at 40% of the assessed income as held by
the Honb'ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others, (2017)16 SCC 680. She further submits that
claimant No.1 being wife of the deceased would be entitled
to Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium, claimants 2
and 3-parents of the deceased would be entitled to
Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium and claimant
No.4-minor daughter of the deceased would be entitled to
Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium as held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram and Others,
reported in 2018 ACJ 2782. Thus, she prays for allowing
the appeal.
5. Per contra, Sri. Shivakumar S Badawadagi,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-
Corporation supporting the impugned judgment and award
would submit that in the absence of any evidence to prove
the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per
month. He further submits that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is just and proper, which needs no
interference by this Court. Thus, he prays for dismissal of
the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for both the
parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, we are of the
view that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of
compensation as follows.
7. As stated above, there is no dispute with
regard to the accident and accidental death of deceased
Parasuram in the present appeal. The claimants are before
this Court praying for enhancement of compensation. The
income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at
Rs.5,000/- per month is on the lower side. Admittedly, the
accident is of the year 2015. Normally, this Court and Lok
Adalath, while settling the accidental claims of the year
2015 would assess the income at Rs.8,000/- per month,
taking note of the chart prepared by KSLSA based on
various factors including the minimum wage fixed. In the
instant case also, in the absence of any material evidence
to establish the income, we are of the opinion that it would
be appropriate for us to determine the income of the
deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m. taking note of the income
chart prepared by KSLSA. Accordingly, the income of the
deceased is taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m. The Tribunal
committed grave error in not granting compensation on
the head of future prospects. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has made it clear that
wherever the deceased is aged below 40 years, the
claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the
assessed income towards future prospects. In the instant
case also, since the deceased was aged 23 years, the
claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the
assessed income towards future prospects. Age of the
deceased, deduction of 1/4th of the assessed income of the
deceased and multiplier of '18' taken by the Tribunal are
not disturbed, which are just and proper. Thus, the
claimants would be entitled for compensation on the head
of loss of dependency at Rs.18,14,400/- (Rs.8,000 +
40% x 3/4 x 12 x 18).
8. Further, 1st claimant being the wife of
deceased Parasuram is entitled for Rs.44,000/- towards
spousal consortium, whereas 2nd and 3rd claimants being
parents of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/-
each towards filial consortium and claimant No.4-minor
daughter of the deceased would be entitled for
Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium as held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. (supra). Thus, the claimants would be entitled for
modified compensation on the following heads:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs.18,14,400/-
(Rs.8,000 + 40% x 3/4 x 12 x 18)
2. Loss of estate & Funeral expenses Rs. 33,000/-
3. Spousal Consortium Rs. 44,000/-
4. Filial Consortium (Rs.40,000 each Rs. 80,000/-
to claimants 2 and 3)
5. Parental Consortium Rs. 40,000/-
Total Rs.20,11,400/-
9. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.20,11,400/- as against
Rs.8,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of
the Tribunal is modified to the extent
that the claimants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.20,11,400/- as
against Rs.8,80,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation amount
will bear interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of claim petition
till date of realization.
d) It is made clear that the claimants are
not entitled for any interest on the
enhanced amount for the delayed
period of 684 days vide order dated
13.8.2021.
e) The apportionment, deposit and
disbursement shall be made as per
the award of the Tribunal.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
