Karnataka High Court
Sri Ganganna @ Gangaiah vs Bijit Ranjan Das on 21 June, 2022
Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.724/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.GANGANNA @ GANGAIAH
S/O LATE MUDALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
2. SMT.MUNIYAMMA
W/O GANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
3. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
4. KUM.SAVITHA
D/O LATE RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS
5. GANESHA
S/O LATE RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
CLAIMANTS NO.4 AND 5 SINCE MINORS IN AGE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND SMT.LAKSHMAMMA
I.E.CLAIMANT NO.3,
2
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.9
"SRI RANGA NILAYA: 10TH CROSS,
SS PURAM, TUMKUR - 572 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.K.T.GURUDEVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE
V/O DATED 24.01.2018 APPELLANT NOS.2 TO 5 ARE
TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED APPELLANT NO.1)
AND:
1. BIJIT RANJAN DAS
S/O B.K.DAS
MAJOR, NO.103, MANTRI PARADISE
ARAKERE, B.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 076.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
CBO 11, # 21, MISSION ROAD
NEAR SUBBAIAH CIRCLE
BANGALORE - 560 027
(INSURER OF HERO HONDA SPLENDOUR
KA-04-R-943 VIDE POLICY NO.207/671
VALID FROM 19-4-2006 TO 18-4-07)
HAVING ITS ONE OF THE BRANCH OF
TGMC BUILDING, JC ROAD,
TUMKUR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.S.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR -2;
V/O DATED 28.02.2019, NOTICE TO R-1
IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
31.12.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.32/2007 ON THE FILE OF
3
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACT COURT-III AND
ADDITIONAL MACT, TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2.
2. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with as
there is no dispute relating to liability.
3. The appellant has preferred this appeal against
the impugned judgment and award dated 31.12.2009
passed in MVC No.32/2007 on the file of the III Additional
M.A.C.T. at Tumkur.
4. The accident took place on 05.11.2006 is not
in dispute. The claim petition is filed by father, mother,
wife and two minor children of late Sri.Rajanna. It is
stated that late Rajanna was a carpenter and having an
income of Rs.7,300/- pm. The claimants have examined
P.W.3 who is said to be the employer of deceased Rajanna.
However, for want of evidence, the Tribunal has not
accepted the claim of the claimants. Tribunal has taken
income at Rs.3,000/- p.m. and calculated dependency.
Tribunal has awarded compensation as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.3,60,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.3,000/-
3. Conveyance charges Rs.2,000/-
4. Loss of Consortium Rs.10,000/-
5. Loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.3,85,000/-
In all Tribunal has awarded the compensation of
Rs.3,85,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum.
4. The learned counsel for the claimant would
submit that the Tribunal has erred in taking income at
Rs.3,000/- pm despite evidence being led in support of
claim for a higher income.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurer
would submit that the evidence led on behalf of the
claimants to support the claim of income of Rs.7,000/- is
an after thought and the Tribunal has rightly taken
notional income is at Rs.3,000/-.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer
would submit that in MFA No.6124/2010, the appeal filed
by the insurer challenging the quantum as well as liability,
this Court has dismissed the appeal observing that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not unjust. He
further submits that the confirmation of judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the
insurance company would also indicate that there is no
scope for enhancement. Learned counsel by referring to
the observation made by this Court in the said MFA would
contend that there is no scope for enhancement. In the
said case Court has not considered the case for
enhancement as Court has only considered the case for
reduction of compensation.
7. This Court has perused the records. The
evidence on record placed by the claimants is not
convincing to uphold the claim of income of Rs.7,300/-. In
the absence of material, Court would take notional income
indicated in the chart prepared by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority. Accident is of the year 2006. As
per the chart prepared by the authority the notional
income would be Rs.4,000/- p.m. Accordingly, the
dependency has to be calculated. Deceased was aged 34
years at the time of accident. This factor is not in dispute.
Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be '16' and 40% is
to be added towards future prospects to the notional
income of the deceased.
8. This Court has also noticed that the
compensation awarded under the other conventional heads
is not adequate. Accordingly, each of the claimants is
entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards
'consortium'. Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of
estate' and Rs.15,000/- towards the 'funeral expenses'.
Accordingly, compensation would be:
Sl. Amount
Particulars
No. (in Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 8,06,400/-
(5,600 X 16 X 12 X 3/4)
2. Funeral expenses 15,000/-
3. Loss of Consortium 40,000/-
4. Loss of estate 15,000/-
Total 8,76,400
9. It is brought to the notice of the Court that
father of the deceased is died during pendency of the
appeal. 40% towards consortium awarded to the father
shall be released to the mother, who is appellant No.2 in
this case.
Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part. Judgment
and award passed by the M.A.C.T. is modified by
enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.3,85,000/ to
8,76,400/-. Thus, enhanced compensation of
Rs.4,91,400/- shall be paid by the insurer.
10. However, it is noticed that this Court in terms
of order dated 31.12.2009 has disallowed the interest and
for a delay period of 1791 days. The insurer is not liable
to pay interest on the awarded enhanced compensation for
the above mentioned days. Accordingly, judgment and
award dated 31.12.2009 is modified.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gpg
