Karnataka High Court
M M Channashetty @ ... vs United India Insurance Co Ltd on 24 June, 2022
Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
M.F.A.NO.5275 OF 2015 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. M M CHANNASHETTY @
K.M. CHENNASHETTY,
S/O K.M MADA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
2. MUTHA MADAMMA,
W/O K.M CHANNASHETTY @
K.M CHENNASHETTY,
R/AT NO.43, KALAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
AND POST, KODIHALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.)
AND:
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
R/O KRISHI BHAVAN,6TH FLOOR,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
NEAR HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 01,BY ITS MANAGER.
2. VISHWANATHA C,
S/O CHANNAVEERAPPA,
R/AT SRIKESHAVASWAMY TEMPLE STREET,
VIJAYAPURA,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI S KRISHNA KISHORE, ADV. FOR R1,
V/O/DT: 25.01.2017 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-----
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED30.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.15009/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VTH ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE
RURAL DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation challenging the judgment
and award dated 30.12.2014 in MVC No.15009/2014
passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Devanahalli.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant
and the learned advocate for respondent/insurance
company No.1. This Court vide order dated 25.01.2017
has dispensed the notice to respondent No.2 as there is no
liability on the owner/respondent No.2.
4. This appeal is filed by the claimants who are
the parents of K.C.Puttesh, who died in a road traffic
accident that occurred on 07.06.2013 at 12.30 P.M. near
Kurubaraktte Cross. When K.C.Puttesh was riding the
motor cycle bearing No.KA-41-W-9153, a Maxi Cab bearing
No.KA-11-1686 being driven rashly and negligently by its
driver dashed the motor cycle. Due to the said accident
K.C.Puttesh sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed
to the death on the way to hospital. The deceased was
aged 24 years working as Clearance Executive in Budget
Couriers Pvt. Ltd. at the time of the accident.
5. The claimants have filed a claim petition before
the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The
Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence awarded the compensation as under :-
Sl.No. Heads Amount of
compensation
1 Loss of dependency Rs.4,68,000/-
(36,000X13)=
2 Transportation of dead body Rs.15,000/-
and funeral expenses
3 Loss of love and affection Rs.15,000/-
4 Loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.5,08,000/-
6. The claimants being aggrieved have preferred
this appeal seeking enhancement.
7. The claimants have sought enhancement on the
ground that the deceased was earning gross salary of
Rs.1,98,720/-per annum as per his appointment letter as
well as pay slips produced by the claimants before the
Tribunal. On perusal of the pay slip, the deceased was
getting basic of Rs.6,500/-, HRA of Rs.5,200/-,
Conveyance of Rs.800/- and Special Allowance of
Rs.3,280/-. Thus his gross salary was Rs.15,780/-for the
months of December-2012, January-2013 and February-
2013. However, the Tribunal has disbelieved the
documents and has taken the income of the deceased at
Rs.6,000/- per month.
8. On considering the documents and the
contentions raised by the learned advocate for the parties,
this Court is of the opinion, that income taken by the
Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is incorrect. Based on
the documents on record, it is to be held that the notional
income of the deceased could be taken at Rs.10,000/- per
month. 40% is to be added towards future prospects as
per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported
in (2017) 16 SCC 680 in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi and others.
Therefore, this Court taking the income of deceased at
Rs.10,000/- per month and deducting 50% towards
personal expenses as he was a bachelor, loss of
dependency would be Rs.10000+4000X12X18X1/2
=Rs.15,12,200/-.
9. It is also noticed that compensation awarded
under the head of loss of consortium, loss of estate and
funeral and obsequies transportation of dead body is not
in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Pranay Sethi's case supra. Hence, the same
needs to be modified.
10. As there are two dependents, Rs.40,000/- is to
be awarded towards loss of consortium to each of the
claimants. Award of Rs.10,000/- by the tribunal under the
head of loss of estate is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. Award
of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection
is set-aside as compensation is awarded under the head of
'loss of consortium'. Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral
and obsequies, transportation of dead body is retained.
11. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation
as under :-
1 Loss of dependency Rs.15,12,200/-
2 Consortium Rs. 80,000/-
(40000X2=80,000/-)
3 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
4 Funeral and obsequies Rs. 15,000/-
Transportation of dead body
Total Rs.16,22,200 /-
LESS:Amount awarded by the Rs. 5,08,000/-
tribunal
Total Enhanced Compensation Rs.11,14,200/-
12. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed-in-part. The impugned judgment
and award dated 30.12.2014 passed by the V Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli is modified.
(ii) The appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.11,14,200/- along with interest @
6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realisation.
(iii) The 1st respondent/insurance company shall
deposit the amount after deducting the amount, if any,
already paid within eight weeks from the date of receipt
of this order.
(iv) In all other aspects, the award of the
Commissioner shall stand undisturbed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HD
