Karnataka High Court
Smt. Yashodha vs Sri K Madhuchandran on 27 June, 2022
Bench: B.Veerappa, K S Hemalekha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.4024/2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. YASHODHA,
W/O LATE SHREENIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
HOUSEHOLD WORK.
2. MASTER MITHUN,
S/O LATE SHREENIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS.
3. KUM. SANVI,
D/O LATE SHREENIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS.
APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3
ARE MINORS,
REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1.
4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
M/O LATE SHREENIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
HOUSE HOLD WORK.
5. SRI VEERABASAPPA,
-2-
F/O LATE SHREENIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
HOUSE HOLD WORK.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT,
THUPPADAHALLI VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 526.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMARAPPA T.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI K. MADHUCHANDRAN,
S/O CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT KENCHAPURA VILLAGE,
THUPPADAHALLI POST,
HOLALKERE TALUK - 577 526,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
NO.1, 2ND FLOOR,
ENKEY COMPLEX,
KESHWAPUR,
HUBLI - 580 023.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1
IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 23.02.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.13/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE AND MACT, HOLALKERE,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, K.S.HEMALEKHA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimants, who
are the wife, children and parents of the deceased
B.V. Shreenivas assailing the judgment and award
dated 23.02.2021, passed in MVC.No.13/2019 on the
file of the Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Holalkere (hereinafter referred to as "the
Tribunal" for short) seeking enhancement of
compensation, whereby the Tribunal has awarded
total compensation of Rs.12,90,000/- with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the
date of realization.
2. The claimants filed the claim petition
seeking compensation of Rs.51,00,000/- with interest
@ 18% p.a. on account of death of one B.V.
Shreenivas, who died in a road traffic accident that
occurred on 03.10.2018 at 8.30 pm, when the
deceased was standing beside the road along with his
friends near the land of Ligadi Parameshwarappa,
Kaval Village of Holalkere Taluk, at that time, one
Maruthi Omni Car bearing TP registration No.KA-
04/TY010740/2018-19 came in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the deceased and due to
the impact, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. It
is the contention of the claimants that the deceased
was hale and healthy at the time of the accident and
he was earning Rs.40,000/- per month and the
claimants were solely dependent upon the income of
the deceased and hence, sought for compensation.
3. In pursuance of the notice issued by the
Tribunal, respondents Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed
their objections separately.
4. Respondent No.1-owner of the offending
vehicle contended that the driver of the vehicle was
holding valid and effective driving licence as on the
date of the accident and the vehicle was insured with
respondent No.2-insurance company and as such,
contended that respondent No.2 is liable to pay the
compensation and sought to dismiss the petition filed
by the claimants.
5. Respondent No.2-insurance company filed
objections contending that the alleged accident
occurred due to the negligence on the part of the
deceased and not due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of Maruthi Omni Car and thus,
sought to absolve the liability.
6. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings
framed the following issues:
ISSUES
"1. Whether the petitioners prove that
deceased B.V. Shreenivas S/o Veerabasappa
was died due to injuries in RTA that occurred
on 03-10-2018 at about 8.30 p.m., near land
of Ligadi Parameshwarappa in between
Ramagiri-R.D.Kaval Village, Holalkere Taluk,
when deceased was standing beside the road
along with other friends, due to rash and
negligence driving of Maruthi Omni bearing
Reg.No.KA-04/TY010740/2018-19 by its
driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
3. What order or award?
ADDL. ISSUE
1. Whether the respondent No.2 proves
that the alleged accident was occurred due to
the negligence on part of the deceased
himself?"
7. In order to substantiate the contention of
the claimants, claimant No.1, the wife of the deceased
examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 09
documents as Exs.P-1 to P-9. On the other hand,
respondents did not examine any witness however,
respondent No.2-insurance company got marked the
insurance policy at Ex.R.1.
8. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral
and documentary evidence on record held that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the Maruthi Omni Car bearing TP
registration No.KA-04/TY010740/2018-19 by its driver
and fastened the liability on the insurance company
awarding compensation of Rs.12,90,000/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from petition till
the date of realization.
9. Being unsatisfied with the award of
compensation by the Tribunal, the present appeal is
preferred by the claimants. No appeal is preferred by
the insurance company.
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellants
and learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance
company and perused the material on record.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants, Sri
Shivakumarappa T.C. would contend that the
compensation arrived by the Tribunal under the head
loss of dependency is contrary to the dictum of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009)6 SCC 121]
(Sarla Verma) and National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others [2017 ACJ
2700] (Pranay Sethi) as the Tribunal has not awarded
future prospects. It is also contended that the
Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at
Rs.9,000/- per month without considering the actual
income of the deceased that he was earning
Rs.40,000/- per month by doing agriculture work and
to substantiate this contention, the claimants had
produced relevant RTC extracts. Thus, the award of
compensation by the Tribunal under the head loss of
dependency is on the lower side. It is also contended
that the award of compensation under the
conventional heads is not as per the dictum of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India
Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @
Satwinder Kaur and others [AIR 2020 SC 3076]
(Satinder Kaur) and Magma General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram & Others [2018 ACJ
2782] (Magma General Insurance Company Ltd.),
and sought to allow the appeal by enhancing the
compensation.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the
insurance company, Sri A. Ravishankar, would
contend that the Tribunal has rightly awarded just and
fair compensation as contemplated by the judgments
of the Apex Court and the same does not call for any
interference in the hands of this Court and sought to
dismiss the appeal.
- 10 -
13. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties, the only point that arises for consideration in
this appeal is,
"Whether the appellants/claimants have
made out any case for enhancement in the
facts and circumstances of the present
case?"
14. The date, time and occurrence of accident
are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the Maruthi Omni Car bearing TP
registration No.KA-04/TY010740/2018-19 as is
evident from Ex.P-1 the FIR, EX.P-2-the Complaint,
Ex.P-8-the Charge sheet. The only dispute is with
regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal.
15. The Tribunal has taken the notional income
of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. It is
- 11 -
relevant to note that in the absence of the documents
to evidence the actual income of the deceased, the
guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority, Bengaluru needs to be considered.
For the accident that occurred in the year 2018 the
notional income to be taken as per the Chart is
Rs.12,500/- and adding 40% (12,500 + 40% future
prospects amounting to Rs.5,000/- as per Pranay
Sethi) Thus, the income of the deceased that would
be arrived at is Rs.17,500/- and deducting 1/4th
towards personal expenses of the deceased as the
dependants are five in number in light of the dictum of
the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma, the
notional income would be Rs.13,125/-. Considering
the age of the deceased as 38 years, the multiplier
applicable is '15'. The claimants are entitled for
Rs.23,62,500/- under the head loss of dependency.
(13125 x 12 x 15 = 23,62,500/-)
- 12 -
16. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in
Satinder Kaur and Magma General Insurance
Company Ltd., stated supra as the
claimants/dependents are five in number, they are
entitled for Rs.40,000/- each amounts to
Rs.2,00,000/- and under the head loss of estate and
towards conveyance and funeral expenses
Rs.15,000/- each. Accordingly, the point framed for
consideration is answered partly in the affirmative and
the claimants are entitled for just and proper
compensation as under:
Loss of dependency Rs.23,62,500/-
Loss towards parental,
spousal and filial
consortium Rs. 2,00,000/-
(40,000 x 5)
Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Transportation and funeral
Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
----------------
Rs.25,92,500/-
=========
- 13 -
17. The claimants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.25,92,500/- as against
Rs.12,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The
claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation
of Rs.13,02,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
18. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in
part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal is hereby modified. The
appellants/claimants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.25,92,500/- as against
Rs.12,90,000/-.
- 14 -
(iii) The enhanced compensation of Rs.13,02,500/-
shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of
realization
(iv) Respondent No.2/insurance company shall
deposit the enhanced compensation within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this judgment with proportionate
interest.
(v) The Registry is directed to return the trial Court
records forthwith.
(vi) Office is directed to draw the award accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBM
