Karnataka High Court
Lakshmi Devi vs Murugesh K.C on 23 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.8536 OF 2019(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. LAKSHMI DEVI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
W/O HANUMANTHU
2. HANUMANTHU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O. CHIKKA HANUMAPPA
BOTH ARE R/AT PACHARLAHALLI VILLAGE
VEMAGAL HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK-563101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. NAZEEFA M MULLA, ADV. FOR
SRI. PAVANACHANDRA SHETTY, ADV.)
AND
1. MURUGESH K.C.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O CHANDRAPPA
@ CHANDRAPPA NAIDU
R/AT 2ND CROSS,2ND MAIN
NEAR SHANIMAHATHAMA TEMPLE KAVERINAGAR,
MAHADEVAPURA
BENGALURU-560048.
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
2
RGIC 28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR
CENTENARY BUILDING
EAST WING, M.G. ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADV.FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
10.07.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.154/2017, ON THE FILE
OF THE I-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',
for short) has been filed by the claimants being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.07.019 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar in MVC
No.154/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 29.10.2016 at about 12.45
P.M., both the claimants were working as stone
cutters at Mahadevapura lake at Bengaluru and at
that time their five year old daughter by name Kumari
Anusuya was sleeping by the side of the lake and at
that time, the driver of the JCB bearing Registration
No.KA-53-MA-7522 came in a rash and negligent
manner and ran over the head of Anusuya. As a
result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the
injuries.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section
166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of
the deceased along with interest.
4. On service of summons, the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and the Insurance
Company have appeared through counsel and only
insurer has filed written statement in which the
averments made in the petition were denied. It was
pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in
the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the
accident was due to the negligence on the part of
deceased herself. The liability is subject to terms and
conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that
the quantum of compensation claimed by the
claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for
dismissal of the petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to
prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1
and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9.
On behalf of respondents, neither examined any
witness nor exhibited any documents on their behalf.
The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter
alia, held that the accident took place on account of
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by
its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained
injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal
further held that the claimants are entitled to a
compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- along with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance
Company to deposit the compensation amount along
with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been
filed.
6. Ms. Nazeefa M. Mulla, learned counsel for
Sri Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the
claimants has contended that at the time of the
accident, the deceased was aged about 5 years. When
she was sleeping by the side of the lake, the driver of
the JCB bearing Registration No.KA-53-MA-7522 came
in a rash and negligent manner and ran over the head
of deceased Anusuya. Due to impact, she died.
He further contended that in the similar
circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
KISHAN GOPAL AND ANOTHER -V- LALA AND
OTHERS (2013 AIR SCW 5037) has held that the
notional income of the deceased was considered
Rs.30,000/- per annum and granted a total
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
She further contended that the total
compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,35,000/-
is on the lower side. Hence, she prays for
enhancement of compensation.
7. On the other hand, Sri Ravi S. Samprathi,
learned counsel for the Insurance Company has
contended that at the time of the accident, the
deceased was aged about 5 years. The judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'KISHAN
GOPAL' (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the
claimants is not applicable to the facts of the case
wherein the deceased was aged 10 years helping to
his father in the agricultural work. But in the case on
hand, the deceased was a minor girl. The Tribunal has
rightly considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of RESHMA KUMARI AND OTHERS
V/S. MADAN MOHAN AND ANOTHER reported in 2013
ACJ 1253 and granted just and reasonable
compensation. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that Kumari Anusuya
died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its
driver.
At the time of the accident, the deceased was
aged about 5 years. The Tribunal has rightly held that
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
'KISHAN GOPAL' (supra) is not applicable to the facts
of the case on hand.
Since the deceased was a minor girl, considering
the age of the deceased and considering the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018
ACJ 2782] and considering the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'RESHMA KUMARI'
(supra), I am of the opinion that the compensation of
Rs.2,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.3,00,000/- with 6% interest.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in
part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
The claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as against
Rs.2,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the
date of realization, within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA/-
