Karnataka High Court
Sarojamma vs Basavarajappa on 20 January, 2022
Bench: S G Pandit, Anant Ramanath Hegde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MFA No.103388/2016 (MV)
BETWEEN
1. SMT.SAROJAMMA
W/O LATE G.T. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
OCC. HOUSEWIFE
2. G.N PARVATHI
D/O LATE G.T. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
3. MINOR G.N. MOHANRAJ
S/O LATE G.T. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
4. MINOR G N NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O LATE G.T NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS
5. RANGAMMA W/O THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
6. THIMMAPPA S/O PENNOBALA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
APPELLANTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL
2
GUARDIAN AND MOTHER
SMT.SAROJAMMA.
ALL ARE R/O C.K. HALLI VILLAGE
IN SANDUR TALUK
OF BALLARI DISTRICT-583101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.Y LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
KSRTC BUS DRIVER
R/O BADGE NO.05
KUDLIGI DEPOTT
KUDLIGI TALUKA
OF BALLARI DISTRICT-583101
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKRTC
HOSAPETE DIVISION
HOSAPETE IN BALLARI DISTRICT-583101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.11.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.731/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER
MACT-XII, BALLARI PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
The claimants are before this Court praying for
enhancement of compensation not being satisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment
and award dated 02.11.2015 in MVC No.731/2013 on the
file of the MACT-XII at Ballari.
2. Claimants being wife, children and parents of
one deceased G.T.Nagaraj filed claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming
compensation for the accidental death of G.T.Nagaraj
which took place on 21.02.2013 involving KSRTC bus
bearing Reg.No.KA-34/F-977. It is stated that the
deceased was aged 35 years and was doing brick business
earning Rs.30,000/- p.m.
3. The claimants examined wife of the deceased
as PW.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to 7 in support of their case,
whereas respondent-Corporation examined RW.1 and
marked Ex.R.1.
4. The Tribunal based on the material on record
awarded total compensation of Rs.8,49,840/- with interest
at the rate of 7% p.a. on the following heads:
Towards loss of dependency Rs.7,89,840.00
For the loss of estate Rs.10,000.00
For the loss of love and affection Rs.10,000.00
Towards funeral expenses Rs.20,000.00
For the loss of consortium to the Rs.20,000.00
first petitioner
Total Rs.8,49,840.00
5. While awarding the above compensation, the
Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.4,500/- and added 30% of the assessed income
towards future prospects, deducted 1/4th of the income
towards personal expenses of the deceased and adopted
15 multiplier.
6. Heard Sri.Y.Lakshmikant Reddy, learned
counsel for the appellants and Sri.C.B.Patil, learned
counsel for the respondent-Corporation. Perused the
appeal papers.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants would
contend that the income assessed by the Tribunal at
Rs.4,500/- p.m. of the deceased is on the lower side and
prays for assessing the income of the deceased at
Rs.7,000/- p.m. relying upon the chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Further, it is
contended that the Tribunal committed grave error in
granting only 30% of the assessed income towards future
prospects, whereas the claimants would be entitled for
Rs.40% towards future prospects as per the dictum in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
8. Further, the learned counsel would submit that
the claimants No.2 to 6 would be entitled for Rs.40,000/-
each on the head of consortium, whereas claimant No.1
would be entitled for Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads.
Thus, he prays for enhancement of compensation.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
Corporation submits that the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation which needs
no interference.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, the only point
which falls for consideration is as to whether the appellants
would be entitled for enhanced compensation?
11. The answer to the above point is in the
affirmative for the following reasons.
12. The accident which occurred on 21.02.2013
involving KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-34/F-977 and the
accidental death of one G.T.Nagaraj, husband of claimant
No.1 is not in dispute in this appeal. Claimants are before
this Court praying for enhancement of compensation.
13. The income assessed by the Tribunal at
Rs.4,500/- p.m. of the deceased is on the lower side.
Normally when there is no material on record to establish
the income, the Court and Tribunal would have to assess
the notional income on guess work. In the instant case,
the claimants state that the deceased was doing brick
business and was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. No material is
placed on record to establish the brick business nor the
earning of the deceased. This Court and Lok-Adalath while
settling the accidental claims of the year 2013 would
normally assess the notional income at Rs.7,000/- p.m.
relying upon the chart prepared by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority, which is prepared taking into
account various factors including minimum wage. Thus, we
are of the considered opinion that the income of the
deceased could be taken at Rs.7,000/- p.m.
14. The Tribunal committed an error in awarding
only 30% of the assessed income towards future
prospects. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra) has made it clear that wherever the deceased was
aged below 40 years, the claimants would be entitled for
adding 40% of the assessed income towards future
prospects. Thus, we feel that the claimants would be
entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income as against
30% awarded by the Tribunal. Deduction of 1/4th and
adopting 15 multiplier is proper and correct.
15. Claimants No.2 to 6 are children and parents of
the deceased. As per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in
(2018) 18 SCC 130, claimants No.2 to 6 would be
entitled for Rs.40,000/- each on the head of parental
consortium and filial consortium apart from Rs.70,000/- on
conventional heads to claimant No.1-wife. Thus, the
claimants would be entitled for the following modified
compensation:
Heads Amounts in
(Rs.)
Loss of dependency 13,23,000.00
7,000 + 40% = 9,800
9,800 - 1/4th = 7,350 x 12 x 15
Filial consortium and parental 2,00,000.00
consortium (40,000 x 5)
Loss of estate, funeral expenses 70,000.00
and spousal consortium
Total 15,93,000.00
16. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled
for total compensation of Rs.15,93,000/- as against
Rs.8,49,840/- awarded by the Tribunal.
17. Tribunal has granted interest at 7% p.a.
However, taking note of the bank interest rate at present,
we deem it appropriate to award interest at 6% p.a. on the
compensation amount from the date of petition till
realization.
18. In view of the above, the appeal is partly
allowed and the judgment and award of the Tribunal
stands modified to the above extent.
19. Apportionment and deposit would be as per the
order of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
sh
