Smt. Siddamma vs Sri. Puttaraju
2022 Latest Caselaw 10608 Kant

                               1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3216 /2018 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

1.      SMT.SIDDAMMA
        W/O LATE SIDDASHETTY
        AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

2.      SAVITHA
        D/O LATE SIDDASHETTY
        AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

3.      SRI.SHIVAMURTHY
        S/O LATE SIDDASHETTY
        AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

4.      SMT.VENKATAMMA @
        CHIKKENAMMA
        W/O LATE CHIKKABASAVASHETTY
        AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

5.      SMT.PALLAVI
        W/O MALLU
        AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

        ALL ARE RESIDING AT
        SOMANAPURA VILLAGE
        TERKANAMBI HOBLI
        GUNDLUPET TALUK - 571 123         ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI H.V.BHANU PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
                              2

AND:

1.     SRI.PUTTARAJU
       S/O KULLEGOWDA,
       MAJOR
       R/AT NO.139, BEGUR-2, (V) & (P)
       GUNDLUPET TALUK - 571 109

2.     SRI.RAVIKUMAR
       S/O JAVARAIAH
       MAJOR
       R/AT NO.53, DINKA VILLAGE
       PANDAVAPURA TALUK - 571 812
       MANDYA DISTRICT

3.     THE UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       D.O.-2, NO.2912
       SRI.VENKATESHWARA PLAZA
       1ST MAIN, SARASWATHIPURA
       MYSURU - 570 009                   ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
    NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED WITH)

      THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
15.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.342/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MACT, GUNDLUPET,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.


     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the

Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 'MV

Act' for brevity) by the appellants-claimants, challenging

the judgment and award dated 15.03.2018, passed in MVC

No.342/2017, on the file of Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C,

Gundlupet, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for

brevity) seeking enhancement.

Brief facts:

2. That on 13.03.2017 at about 2.30 p.m. the

deceased Siddashetty and petitioner No.1 were going in

Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-10-R-5622 from Kallahalli to

Terakanambi. Near the Baratally gate, the driver of TATA

magic Maxi cab driver bearing No. KA-11-A-3373 driven in

rash and negligent manner came from Terakanambi side

dashed to the Siddashetty motor cycle and caused the

accident. Due to the accident the Siddashetty sustained

injuries to his head and other parts of the body, on the

way to the hospital the Siddashetty died. The Siddashetty

died due to the rash and negligent driving by the TATA

Magic cab driver.

3. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the

appellants-claimants under Section-166 of the M.V. Act,

claiming compensation. The deceased was hale and

healthy. Prior to the accident he was earning Rs.16,000/-

per month. The appellants who are the parents were

depending upon the earning of the deceased. The Tribunal

on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the

petition in part, and awarded a compensation of

Rs.8,62,000/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from

the date of petition till realization. The Tribunal held

respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation and

respondent No.3 shall deposit the compensation amount.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the

appellants-claimants submitted that the amount of

compensation awarded under each of the heads is meager

one. Therefore, prays for enhancement of the

compensation.

5. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants

submitted that considering the year of the accident that

occurred on 13.03.2017, the 'notional income' ought to

have been taken at Rs.11,000/- per month but the

Tribunal had considered only Rs.8,000/- per month which

is not correct. Further the Tribunal has not considered the

'Loss Of Future Prospect In Life' at 25%. Therefore, prays

to add this income under the head of 'Loss Of Future

Prospect In Life'. Further submitted that the amount of

compensation awarded under the head of 'Loss Of

Consortium' is on lesser side, hence prays to enhance

under this head.

6. Further learned Counsel for the appellants-

claimants submitted that the age of the deceased was 48

years and accordingly the age has to be considered and

hence the claimants are entitled for enhancement of the

compensation. Therefore, prays to enhance the

compensation on various heads.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.3 - insurance company

submitted that the age of the deceased can be taken

according to the post-mortem report in the absence of any

other documentary evidence as per the principle of law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further in the

present case the claimants have not produced any

documents to show the exact age of the deceased. Further

in the absence of those documents, age as mentioned in

the post-mortem report may be taken into consideration.

Therefore requested to consider the age of the deceased at

52 years. He further submits that the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are

sufficient. Hence, there is no need to enhance the

compensation amount. Therefore, prays to dismiss the

appeal.

8. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

under various heads are as follows:

1 Towards Loss of Income due to the : Rs. 7,92,000/-

death of deceased 2 Towards of Estate : Rs. 15,000/-

3   Towards Consortium                          :   Rs.    40,000/-
4   Towards Funeral expenses                    :   Rs.    15,000/-
                                        TOTAL :     Rs.   8,62,000/-

9. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the

materials on record.

10. It is stated that the deceased was agriculturist

and the appellants-claimants have not produced the exact

documentary evidence to show what is the age of the

deceased. Even though Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are the ration

card and Aadhar card, but in the said documents, the date

of birth is not mentioned. Therefore in the absence of

other documentary evidence, the age of the deceased

cannot be ascertained and whatever the age mentioned in

the post-mortem report can be taken into consideration.

Ex.P5 is the post-mortem report and the age of the

deceased is mentioned as 52 years and accordingly

believing the said document, the age of the deceased is

considered as 52 years. Therefore, the notional income has

to be taken into consideration as the deceased was an

agriculturist and accordingly the notional income as per the

Chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for

the year 2017-18 is taken at Rs.11,000/- per month.

Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

considering the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- is

not correct. The appropriate multiplier applicable as per

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Smt.Sarla Verma & Others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn

And Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, is '11'.

Since the deceased was aged 52 years at the time of

accident and the accident has occurred in the year 2017,

as per the Notional Income Chart preferred by the

Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, the notional

income of Rs.11,000/- has to be taken into consideration.

Further, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.

Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 10% of

his monthly income is added towards 'Loss Of Future

Prospects In Life', i.e., Rs.1100/- (Rs.11,000/- x 10%).

11. Considering the number of the family members

1/4th would be deducted towards personal expenses and

the remaining 3/4th amount would be the contribution to

the family. Therefore taking into consideration the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- and after

deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards

personal expenses, 3/4th of the income would come to

Rs.9075/- (11,000 +1,100= 12,100 x ¾ = 9075/-).

12. Therefore, the compensation under the head

'Loss Of Dependency' including 'Loss of Further Prospects

In Life' is recalculated and quantified as follows:

Rs.11,000+1100 (10% of 11,000) x 3/4th x 11 x 12

= Rs.11,97,900/-.

13. Accordingly the compensation of

Rs.11,97,900/- is to be awarded under the head of 'Loss

Of Dependency' including 'Loss Of Future Prospects In

Life'

14. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a

compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards 'Loss Of Estate',

which is found to be correct considering the year of the

accident and therefore there is no ground for interference.

Accordingly, the same is kept in tact.

15. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of

Rs.40,000/- towards 'Loss Of Consortium', which is

meager one. As per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case, appellants - claimants

who are parents of the deceased are awarded

Rs.40,000/- each, under the head 'Towards Filial Love

/ Loss of Consortium'. There are totally five heirs.

Accordingly all are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

under the lead of 'loss of Consortium'

16. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to the

enhanced compensation as follows:

1 Towards Loss of Income due to the : Rs. 11,97,900/-

death of deceased ( Rs.9075 x 11 x 12 = Rs.11,97,900/-)

2 Towards of Estate : Rs. 15,000/-

3 Towards Consortium : Rs. 2,00,000/-

(Rs.40,000 x 5= 2,00,000/-)

4 Towards Funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000/-

TOTAL : Rs. 14,27,900/-

17. The appellants-claimants are entitled for a

total enhanced compensation of Rs.14,27,900/- as

against Rs.8,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the

appellants are entitled for an additional Compensation of

Rs.5,65,900/- (Rs.14,27,900 - Rs.8,62,000), along

with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date

of petition till the date of realization.

18. Accordingly, I pass the following

ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

ii. The judgment and award dated 15.03.2018,

passed in MVC No.342/2017, on the file of the

Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C, Gundlupet, is

modified to the above extent.

iii. The appellants are entitled to an enhanced

compensation of Rs.5,65,900/-

(Rs.14,27,900 - Rs.8,62,000), along with

interest at the rate of 6% per annum from

the date of petition till the date of realization,

in addition to what has been awarded by the

Tribunal. The order of apportionment is kept

intact as made by the Tribunal.

iv. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court

Records to the Tribunal, along with certified

copy of the order passed by this Court

forthwith without any delay.

      v.     Draw award accordingly.




                                             Sd/-
                                            JUDGE
PKN