Karnataka High Court
Ramanjinamma vs B.E. Veerabhadrappa on 14 January, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
M.F.A. No.21649/2013
C/W
M.F.A.No.21650/2013
In MFA No.21649/2013
BET WEEN
1 . SMT.RAJESHWARI,
W/O LATE NAGENDRA,
AGED AB OU T 26 YEARS,
R/O: KAMPLI,
KOTT AL VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK,
B ELLARY DISTRICT.
2 . MINOR NAGESHWA RI
D/ O LATE NAGEND RA,
AGED AB OU T 4 YEARS,
REP.B Y T HEIR NAT URAL GU ARDIAN
AND MOTHER RAJESHWARI,
R/O: KAMPLI,
KOTT AL VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK,
B ELLARY DISTRICT.
3 . MINOR NIR OJ ,
S/O LAT E NAGENDRA,
AGED AB OU T 1 YEARS,
REP.B Y T HEIR NAT URAL GU ARDIAN
AND MOTHER RAJESHWARI,
R/O: KAMPLI,
KOTT AL VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK,
B ELLARY DISTRICT.
2
4 . ERANNA,
S/O OB ANNA,
AGE: AB OU T 61 Y EARS,
R/O: KAMPLI,
KOTT AL VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK,
B ELLARY DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT S
(BY SMT.SOU BHAGY A VAKKU ND, ADV. FOR
SRI Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY , ADV.)
AND
1 . B .E. VEERABHADRAPPA,
S/O ESHWARAPPA,
MAJOR,
OWNER OF THE LORRY B EARING
REG.NO.KA-16/A-8490,
R/O: B .G.KERE,
MOLAKALMU R TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DIS TRICT.
2 . THE MANAGER,
ROYAL SU NDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SUNDARAM TOWERS,
45 AND 46,
WHITES ROAD,
CHENNAI. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.N.RAICHU R, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
In MFA No.21650/2013
BETWEEN
1. SMT. RAMANJINAMMA,
W/O LATE MANIRL AY A,
AGED AB OU T 36 YEARS,
R/O: KAMPLI,
KOTT AL VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK,
B ELLARY DISTRICT.
3
2. MINOR RAJU ,
S/O LAT E MANIRLAYA,
AGED AB OU T 18 YEARS,
R/O: KAMPLI,
KOTT AL VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK,
B ELLARY DISTRICT.
3. MINOR CHANDRAKALA,
D/ O LATE MANIRL AYA,
AGED AB OU T 17 YEARS,
R/O: KAMPLI,
KOTT AL VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK,
B ELLARY DISTRICT.
MINOR REPRESENT ED BY NATURAL
GU ARDIAN AND MOTHER RAMANJINA MMA,
4. MINOR MAHESH,
S/O LAT E MANIRLAYA,
AGED AB OU T 16 YEARS,
R/O: KAMPLI,
KOTT AL VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK,
B ELLARY DISTRICT.
MINOR REPRESENT ED BY NATURAL
GU ARDIAN AND MOTHER
RAMANJINAMMA. ...APPELLANT S
(BY SMT.SOU BHAGY A VAKKU ND, ADV. FOR
SRI Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY , ADV.)
AND
1. B .E. VEERABHADRAPPA,
S/O ESHWARAPPA,
MAJOR,
OWNER OF THE LORRY B EARING,
REG.NO.KA-16/A-8490,
R/O: B .G.KERE,
MOLAKALMU R TALUK,
CHITRADURGA TALUK.
4
2. THE MANAGER,
ROYAL SU NDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SUNDARAM TOWERS,
45 AND 46,
WHITES ROAD,
CHENNAI. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.N.RAICHU R, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WIT H)
M.F.A.No.21649/ 2013 IS F ILED U NDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTO R VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.0 9.201 2 PASS ED IN MVC
No.335/ 2012 ON THE FILE OF T HE FAST TRACK COU RT -I
AND MEMBER, MACT-IX , B ALLARI, PART LY ALLOWIN G THE
CLAIM PET IT ION FOR COMPENSAT ION AND S EEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
M.F.A.No.21650/ 2013 IS F ILED U NDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTO R VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.0 9.201 2 PASS ED IN MVC
No.336/ 2012 ON THE FILE OF T HE FAST TRACK COU RT -I
AND MEMBER, MACT-IX , B ALLARI, PART LY ALLOWIN G THE
CLAIM PET IT ION FOR COMPENSAT ION AND S EEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE A PPEA LS COMING ON FOR ADMISS ION, T HIS
DAY THE COU RT DELIVERED THE FOLLOW ING:
5
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are filed by the claimants being
not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded
by the Fast Track Court-I and Member, Motor Accid ent
Claims Trib unal-IX, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Tribunal', for b revity) in MVC Nos.335/2012 and
336/2012 vide its judgment and award dated
07.09.2012. Since these appeals arise out of common
judgment, they are heard together and disposed of by
this common jud gment.
2. Though these appeals are listed for
admission, with the consent of the learned counsels
appearing for the parties, the same are taken up for
final disposal.
3. The parties to these appeals are referred to
by their rankings before the Tribunal for the purpose
of convenience.
4. Brief facts of the case that would be
relevant for the purpose of disposal of these appeals
are, deceased Nag endra and deceased Manirlaya were
travelling in motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-
37/K-2899 on 06.03.2012, at about 8.30 p.m. When
they reached near Kampli, in front of Ananda Hotel, on
Kampli-Kurugodu road , the offending lorry bearing
registration No.KA-16/A-8490 which was driven in a
rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed
against the motorcycle and as a result, Nag end ra and
Manirlaya, succumbed to the injuries sustained by them
in the accident. The claimants who are the leg al
representatives of the deceased had filed claim
petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for b revity)
in MVC Nos.335/2012 & 336/2012, resp ectively,
claiming compensation towards the death of Nag endra
and Manirlaya. The Tribunal vide judgment and award
dated 07.09.2012 partly allowed claim the petitions
awarding compensation of `8,53,500/- to the claimants
in MVC NO.335/2012 and `8,50,500/- to the claimants
in MVC NO.336/2012 with interest at 6% p er annum.
Since the offend ing lorry was duly insured with third
respondent-Insurer, the liability to pay the
comp ensation was saddled on the Insurer. Being not
satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal, the claimants are before this Court in
these two appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants submits
that the accident is of the year 2012, and therefore,
in the absence of substantive evidence to prove the
income of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have
taken the notional income of the deceased at
`6,500/-. She submits that the Tribunal has also not
taken into consideration the loss of the future
prospects of the deceased person. She also submits
that having regard to the number of dependents, the
Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4 t h of the income
of the deceased towards their personal expenses
instead of 1/3 r d . She submits that even under the
conventional heads, the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is on the lower side.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
the Insurer submits that the compensation amount
awarded by Tribunal is just and proper and needs no
interference. However, he does not dispute the
liability of the Insurer to pay the compensation
amount.
7. I have carefully considered the rival
arguments addressed on both sides and perused the
material evidence available on record.
8. The claimants in MVC No.355/2012 are the
wife, children and father of deceased Nagendra. The
Tribunal has taken the notional income of the
deceased at `6,000/- per month. As per the income
chart maintained by the Karnataka State Legal
Service Authority for the purpose of disposal of the
road traffic accident claim cases before the Lok
Adalath, in the absence of substantive evidence to
prove the income, the notional income of deceased
ought to have been taken at `6,500/- per month.
Deceased Nagendra was aged about 28 years, and
therefore, 40% of his income was required to be
taken into consideration towards loss of his future
prospects. The proper multiplier applicable in the
case would be '17' having regard to the age of the
deceased. Since dependents are four in number, the
Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4 t h of the total
income of the deceased towards his personal
expenses. Therefore, towards loss of dependency, the
claimants in MVC No.335/2012 are entitled for a sum
of `13,92,300/- as ag ainst `8,16,000/- award ed b y the
Tribunal. Toward s loss of consortium and loss of love
and affection, the claimants are entitled for a sum of
`40,000/- each and toward s the funeral and other
miscellaneous expenses, the claimants are tog ether
entitled for a further sum of `30,000/-. Therefore,
und er the conventional heads, the claimants are
entitled for a sum of `1,90,000/-. In MVC No.335/2012,
the claimants are therefore entitled for a total
comp ensation of `15,82,300/- as ag ainst `8,33,500/-
award ed by the Tribunal.
9. In MVC No.336/2012, the claimants are the
wife and minor child ren of d eceased Manirlaya. The
deceased was aged about 40 years and even in this
case, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the Tribunal
ought to have taken the notional income of the
deceased at `6,500/- per month. Having regard to the
age of the deceased, 40% of his income should have
been taken into consideration towards loss of his future
prosp ects and the proper multip lier applicable would be
'15'. Having regard to the numb er of depend ants, 1/4 t h
of the total income was required to be ded ucted
towards p ersonal expenses of the deceased. In the said
event, the claimants are entitled for a sum of
`12,28,500/- towards loss of d epend ency. In addition
to the same, und er the conventional head s, the
claimants are entitled for a further sum of `1,90,000/-.
Therefore, the claimants are entitled for a total
comp ensation of `14,18,500/- towards comp ensation as
against the sum of `8,50,500/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
10. The enhanced amount of compensation in both
the cases shall carry interest at 6% p er annum from
the d ate of petition till realization. Since the liab ility
has not been disputed by the Insurer, the enhanced
comp ensation amount with interest shall be d eposited
by the Insurer b efore the Tribunal within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of
this judgment.
11. It is mad e clear that the claimants are not
entitled for interest for the delayed period of 132 days
in p referring the appeals having reg ard to the ord ers
passed this Court on 25.06.2014 and 04.07.2014,
resp ectively.
12. The ord er passed by the Trib unal insofar as it
relates to apportionment, disbursement and d eposit
etc., remains unaltered and the same would also be
applicable to the enhanced compensation amount.
Miscellaneous First Appeals are accordingly partly
allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AC/CLK
