Karnataka High Court
Kumari. Dyamavva D/O. ... vs Divisional Manager on 14 January, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
MFA CROB.No.770/2011(MV)
IN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20607/2010
BETWEEN:
1. Kumari Dyamavva D/o. Veerabhadrappa Badiger
Age: 29 years, Occ: Household work
2. Kumari Shivaleela D/o. Veerabhadrappa Badiger
Age: 27 years, Occ: Household work
3. Kumari Kavita D/o. Veerabhadrappa Badiger
Age: 23 years, Occ: Household work
Cross-objectors Nos. 1 to 3 R/o. Hosahalasur
Tq: Savanur, Dist: Haveri.
(Respondents 1 and 2 in MFA No.20607/2010
died on 27.08.2008 and 26.12.2009 respectively
Cross-objectors 1 to 3 are their LRs)
...CROSS-OBJECTORS
(By Sri.N. P. Vivekmehta, Advocate)
AND:
1. Divisional Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office, Enkay Complex
Keshwapur Hubli, Dist: Dharwad.
2. Channappa S/o. Basavanneppa Karilingannavar
Age: Major, Occ: Business
R/o. Haveri.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. C. V. Angadi, Advocate for R1;
Sri. S. R. Hegde, Advocate for R2)
2
THIS MFA CROB. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.10.2008 PASSED IN
MVC NO.33/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
`3,64,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS MFA CROB. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This cross-objection is filed by the claimants
seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded
by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Addl. MACT, Haveri, in
MVC No.33/2006.
2. The brief facts of the case that would be
relevant for the purpose of disposal of this cross-
objection are:
On 02.01.2005, the deceased Ganesh was
gravelling along with his friends in a Maruti Omni car
bearing registration No.KA-27/M-990 and when the
said car reached near Neha Petrol Bunk on P.B. road
towards Haveri, the driver of the car, who was
driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost
control of the same and dashed the same against a
lorry bearing No.MH-14/V-5413, which was coming
from the opposite side and as a result of the
accident, Ganesh expired on the spot. The claimants,
who are the parents and sisters of deceased Ganesh
had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in MVC No.33/2006 claiming
compensation towards the death of Ganesh in the
road traffic accident that had taken place on
02.01.2005. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of
`3,64,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. and saddled the
liability to pay the entire compensation amount on
the 2 n d respondent Insurer. Being aggrieved by the
same, the Insurer had filed MFA No.20607/2010,
questioning the liability saddled upon it by the
Tribunal. This Court on 28.02.2018 has allowed the
said appeal and held that the Insurer was not liable
to pay the compensation amount under the impugned
award. It was made clear that the judgment passed
in the said appeal was not in the way of cross-
objectors prosecuting their case for enhancement of
compensation as against the owner of the vehicle.
3. Learned counsel for the cross-objectors
submits that, the Tribunal had erred in taking the age
of the younger parent of the deceased to consider the
applicable multiplier. He submits that the age of the
deceased should have been taken into consideration
and accordingly 17 multiplier would have to be made
applicable to the case on hand. He submits that the
Tribunal has not taken into consideration the loss of
future prospects of the deceased. He also submits
that the compensation amount awarded under
conventional heads is on the lower side.
4. The material on record would go to show
that the deceased Ganesh was aged about 28 years
as on the date of the accident. Admittedly, he was
unmarried. Though the claimants contended before
the Tribunal that the deceased was a LIC agent and
he also was a skilled carpenter and owned STD booth,
no substantive material was produced before the
Tribunal to prove the income of the deceased at
`4,500/- per month. Therefore, I am of the
considered view that, considering the year of
accident, the income should have been taken at
`3,500/- per month. Having regard to the age of the
deceased, 40% of his income is required to be taken
into consideration towards loss of his future
prospects and thereafterwards ½ of the total income
is required to be deducted towards his personal
expenses. Hence the monthly income for calculation
of loss of dependency would be `2,450/- (`4900 -
`2450 ). The proper multiplier applicable in the case
on hand will be 17. Therefore, the claimants are
entitled for a compensation of `4,99,800/- (`2450 x
12 x 17) towards 'loss of dependency' as against
`3,24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
5. During the pendency of the claim petition,
claimant No.1 had died and therefore, the remaining
claimants are entitled for a sum of `40,000/- each
towards 'loss of filial love and affection'. In addition
to the same, the claimants are together entitled for a
sum of `30,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss
of estate. Therefore, under the conventional heads,
the claimants are entitled for a sum of `1,90,000/- in
addition to the amount awarded towards loss of
dependency.
6. The claimants are therefore, entitled for a
total sum of `6,89,800/- as compensation as against
`3,64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I
pass the following:
ORDER
The MFA Cross-objection is allowed in part.
The claimants are entitled for an enhanced
compensation of `3,25,800/-, in addition to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced
amount of compensation shall carry interest at 6%
p.a.
In view of the order passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in MFA No.20607/2010, the owner
of the offending vehicle shall be liable to pay the
compensation amount to the claimants and
accordingly, he is directed to deposit the same within
eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this order.
Since claimants No.1 and 2 are now dead, the
compensation amount shall be equally apportioned
between claimants No.3 to 5, who are the cross-
objectors herein. They are entitled to withdraw 50%
of the enhanced compensation amount and the
remaining 50% shall be kept in a fixed deposit in
their respective names in any nationalized or
commercial bank, for a period of three years.
Registry is directed to return the trial Court
records to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab
