Karnataka High Court
Sri Krishnegowda vs Krishnakumar Hegde on 10 March, 2022
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
M.F.A.NO.4810/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KRISHNEGOWDA ,
S/O JAVAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2. SMT. SHANTHAMMA,
W/O KRISHNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
3. VEENA,
D/O KRISHNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O AT
LAKKANALLI VILLAGE,
KONANURU HOBLI,
ARKALGUDU TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MURTHY D L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KRISHNAKUMAR HEGDE
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE APPELLANT,
MAJOR,
#401, ZEN GARDEN,
KUTTUR CHENNAMMA ROAD,
AJJARAKAD, UDUPI - 576 103
2
2. THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
B.M.ROAD,
HASSAN - 573 201
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. Y.P.VENKATAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
16.02.2018, AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE LEARNED
PRESIDING OFFICER, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
ARKALGUD BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AWARDED TO
THE APPELLANTS AND ETC.,
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
04.03.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal by the petitioner seeking
enhancement.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
3. Petitioners have filed this appeal seeking
enhancement contending that the compensation granted is
highly insufficient, inadequate and disproportionate and as
such they are entitled for enhancement. The compensation
granted under various heads is on the lower side.
Facts:
4. It is the case of the petitioners that on
13.01.2016 at 11.15 a.m. deceased Kumara was driving car
No.KA 18/M 5259 from Mangaluru to Kushalanagar. When
the vehicle was near Basavanahalli, in front of house of
Manjanna on Madikeri-Kushalanagara road, bus bearing
Registration No.KA 19/TR 006967 (hereinafter referred to
as offending vehicle) driven by its driver in a rash or
negligent manner and dashed against the car. In the
accident Kumara sustained grievous injuries and died.
4(a). Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 being the parents and
petitioner No.3 being the sister of deceased were
dependant on the earning of the deceased and are entitled
for compensation. At the time of accident deceased was
aged about 28 years. He was doing agriculture.
Respondents being the owner and insurer of the Lorry are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 has
remained absent and as such place Ex-parte.
6. Respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written
statement denying the mode of accident, age, avocation,
income, nature of the injury sustained, medical expenses
incurred. It is unable to admit the coverage of the vehicle in
the absence of petitioners furnishing particulars. The
presence of owner and insurer of the private bus bearing
Registration No.KA 19/TR 006967 is necessary as question
of contributory negligence is involved.
7. During enquiry petitioner No.1 has examined as
PW1 and one witness as PW-2. Petitioners have relied upon
Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On behalf of respondent No.2 RW-1 is
examined and Ex.R1 and R2 are marked.
8. Vide impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted
compensation in a sum of Rs.7,10,136/- as detailed below:
Heads Amount in
Rs.
Towards loss of dependency 6,80,136
Towards cremation, funeral 30,000
expenses, loss of love and
affection, etc.
TOTAL 7,10,136
9. The respondent No.2 - Insurance company has
not challenged the impugned judgment and award.
10. Thus, petitioners are seeking enhancement
contending that the compensation granted is on the lower
side and needs interference by this Court. Therefore, it has
become necessary to examine whether the compensation
granted under various heads are just and proper and if not
whether it is a fit case for interference.
11. Loss of Dependency: The date of accident is
13.01.2016. Based on the PM report the Tribunal has taken
the age of the deceased as 28 years. Though petitioners
have contended that deceased have earning that Rs.20,000
per month, no evidence is placed on record. Therefore the
Tribunal has taken his income on notional basis as
Rs.5,000/-. However, as per the chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which is based on
minimum wages, during the year 2016 the notional income
is required to be taken at Rs.9,500/-. Since the deceased
was below 40 years of age and was an agriculturist, as per
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma
Insurance Co., case, 40% is required to be added towards
loss of future prospects. 40% of Rs.9,500/- comes to
Rs.3,800/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased is to be
taken as Rs.13,300/-.
11.1 Since there are 3 dependants, 1/3 of his income
is to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses
of the deceased. Therefore, 2/3 income is to be taken into
consideration for calculating the loss of dependency. Since,
deceased was aged 28 years, the 17 multiplier taken by the
Tribunal is correct. Therefore, the compensation under the
head loss of dependency is 13,300 x 12 x 17 x
2/3=18,08,800/- as against Rs.6,80,136/- granted by the
Tribunal.
12. Loss of Consortium: The Tribunal has granted
compensation in a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head
cremation, funeral expenses, loss of love and affection.
However, since petitioners are the parents and sister of the
deceased and dependants on him, as per the decision of the
Pranay Sethi case each one of them are entitled for
compensation of in a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head
loss of consortium i.e., 40,000 x 3=1,20,000/-.
13. Funeral Expenses: as per the Pranay Sethi's
case petitioners are entitled for compensation of sum of
Rs.15,000/- under the head funeral expenses which
includes transportation.
14. Loss of estate: Tribunal has not granted any
compensation under this head. As per the decision of the
Pranay Sethi's case, petitioners are entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head loss
of estate.
15. Thus in all petitioners are entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.19,58,800/- as against
7,10,136 granted by the Tribunal as detailed below:
Heads Amount granted Amount granted
by the Tribunal by this Court
In Rs. In Rs.
Loss of dependency 6,80,136 18,08,800
Loss of consortium 30,000 1,20,000
Funeral expenses - 15,000
Loss of estate - 15,000
TOTAL 7,10,136 19,58,800
16. Of course petitioner is entitled for interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) Appellant/petitioner is entitled for compensation
in a sum of Rs.19,58,800/- as against
Rs.7,10,136/- granted by the Tribunal, with
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
realization (minus the amount already
paid/deposited)
(iii) The respondent No.2 Insurance company shall
deposit the compensation amount within a
period of six weeks from the date of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSB/RR
