Karnataka High Court
M P Shivakumar vs Shanaz Begum on 3 March, 2022
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar, P.Krishna Bhat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
M.F.A NO.5288 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN :
1 . M.P. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O M. PARAMJYOTHI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2 . DHARMIK NAYAK S
S/O M.P. SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS
3 . SHRESHTA NAYAKA S
S/O M.P. SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 06 YEARS
APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE
MINORS REPRESENTED BY
THEIR NATURAL FATHER AND
GUARDIAN 1ST APPELLANT
R/AT NO.1882
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.1882, 2ND MAIN
PACHHE ROAD, 'K' BLOCK
KUVEMPUNAGAR
MYSURU-570 023
...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. K. SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE)
[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]
2
AND :
1 . SHANAZ BEGUM
W/O MOHAMED ATEEQ
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.945
MAHADEVAPURA
AZEEZ SAIT NAGAR SATHAGALLI
MYSURU-570 019
2 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, BY ITS MANAGER
MOTOR TP HUB
NO.1134, PRINCE OF WALES ROAD
BALLAL CIRCLE
CHAMARAJAPURAM
MYSURU-570 005
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DTD.26.10.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.06.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 390/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
P.S. DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement
of compensation is filed challenging the judgment and
award dated June 19, 2020 in MVC.No.390/2018 passed
by the Judge, Addl. Court of Small Causes & MACT,
Mysuru.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be
referred as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Heard Shri K.Shantharaj, learned advocate for
the claimants and Shri C.Shankar Reddy, learned advocate
for the Insurer.
4. Brief facts of the case are, on March 19, 2018,
first claimant's wife Archana Naik was riding her scooter in
Mysuru City. The offending Lorry owned by the first
respondent dashed against the scooter on the hind side.
Archana Naik sustained grievous injuries and died in the
hospital. Her husband and children have filed the instant
claim petition. On consideration of material on record,
the Tribunal has awarded Rs.19,30,000/-
5. Shri Shantharaj for the claimants submitted that
Tribunal has considered the earning capacity of the victim
as Rs.15,000/- per month. It has not added the future
prospects to which the claimants are entitled as held in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others1. He further submitted that the compensation
awarded under different heads are not just and
appropriate. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this
appeal.
6. Shri Shankar Reddy for the Insurer argued
opposing the appeal.
7. We have carefully considered rival submissions
and perused the records.
8. Undisputed facts of the case are, the offending
vehicle was insured by second respondent. Liability is
admitted. The Tribunal has held that Archana Naik was
getting salary of Rs.15,000/- p.m. and the same is not
(2017) 16 SCC 680
disputed. Shri Shantharaj is right in his submission that
an amount equivalent to 40% of the salary is required to
be added towards future prospects.
9. First claimant is the husband and claimants
No.2 & 3 are minor children of the deceased. Hence, 1/3rd
is deductible from the earnings of the deceased while
calculating loss of dependency.
10. Claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each
towards loss of consortium and Rs.30,000/- towards
conventional heads.
11. Thus, compensation towards loss of
dependency is worked out as follows;
The monthly income with future prospects works out
to Rs.21,000/- (Rs.15,000+6,000) [by adding 40%
towards future prospects (Rs.15,000*40%=Rs.6,000)].
After deducting 1/3rd, it works out to Rs.14,000/- per
month (Rs.21,000*2/3). The Annual income works out to
Rs.1,68,000/- (Rs.14,000*12). By applying 15 as
multiplier, the loss of dependency works out to
Rs.25,20,000/- (Rs.1,68,000*15).
12. The total compensation is re-computed as
follows;
Sl.No Description Amount
a. Loss of dependency
Rs.25,20,000
b. ADD: Loss of consortium
Rs.1,20,000
(40,000*3)
c. ADD: Conventional heads;
Rs.30,000
funeral expenses, etc.,
d. Total (a+b+c) Rs.26,70,000
e. LESS: Compensation awarded Rs.19,30,000
by the Tribunal (d-e)
Enhanced Compensation Rs.7,40,000
13. Hence, the following;
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part by holding
that claimants are entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.26,70,000/-, as against
Rs.19,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal,
payable with interest at 6% p.a., from the
date of filing claim petition till the date
of deposit. The enhanced compensation is
Rs.7,40,000/-; and
(ii) Insurer shall pay the entire
compensation amount of Rs.26,70,000/- with
interest at 6% p.a., excluding the amount
paid/deposited, if any, within eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Disbursement shall be made as directed by the
Tribunal.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Yn
