Karnataka High Court
Dhanalakshmi vs Kumar on 17 March, 2022
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar, M G Uma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
M.F.A NO.1152 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN :
1. DHANALAKSHMI
W/O SHANKAR L
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
2. SHANKAR L
S/O LATE LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
3. SUMA S
D/O SHANKAR L
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BALAGERI
RAMANAGARA TOWN-562 159 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. K. SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. KUMAR
S/O SHIVANNA
MAJOR
RESIDING AT BALAGERI
RAMANAGARA TOWN-562 159
2
2. UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD.,
BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
REGIONAL OFFICE
6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
NRUPATUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DTD.15.02.2022 NOTICE
TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 333/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
P.S. DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement
of compensation is filed challenging the judgment and
award dated June 24, 2019 in MVC.No.333/2018 passed
by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Ramanagara.
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 P.B.Raju learned advocate for the
Insurer.
4. Hanumantha, son of claimants No.1 and 2 was
riding his motor cycle on B.M.Road in Ramanagara.
Another motor cycle owned by first respondent dashed
against his motor cycle. Hanumanta sustained grievous
injuries and died on the spot. His parents and his sister
have filed the instant claim petition. On adjudication of
the claim petition, Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,42,000/-
with interest at 7% p.a., from the date of the petition till
its complete payment.
5. Shri Shantharaj for the claimants submitted that
the Tribunal has erred in fixing the notional income and
corresponding future prospects while computing the
loss of dependency. Further, the Tribunal has erred in
not granting appropriate compensation for loss of
consortium and towards conventional heads, as held in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others1.
6. Shri P.B.Raju argued opposing the appeal,
but in his usual fairness, did not dispute the settled
position of law.
7. We have carefully considered rival submissions
and perused the records.
8. Undisputed facts of the case are, Hanumantha
has succumbed to the injuries caused in the accident by
the offending motor cycle owned by first respondent .
Insurer has admitted the liability.
9. Hanumantha was aged 23 years. He was a
bachelor. First and second claimants are his parents
and third claimant is his sister. No proof of income was
placed before the Tribunal. In the absence of any proof,
this Court has been consistently considering the notional
earning capacity of an able bodied person in the year 2018
(2017) 16 SCC 680
as Rs.12,500/- p.m. Since, Hanumantha was bachelor,
50% of his earning will have to be deducted towards his
personal expenditure. Future prospects have to be added
at 40% of the notional earning. Claimants are entitled for
Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium and
Rs.30,000/- towards conventional heads.
10. The, compensation towards loss of dependency
is worked out as follows;
The monthly notional income works out to
Rs.17,500/- (Rs.12,500+5,000) [by adding 40% towards
future prospects (Rs.12,500*40%=Rs.5,000]. After
deducting 50%, it works out to Rs.8,750/- per month
(Rs.17,500*50%). The Annual notional income works out
to Rs.1,05,000/- (Rs.8,750*12). By applying 18 as
multiplier, the loss of dependency works out to
Rs.18,90,000/- (Rs.1,05,000*18).
11. The total compensation is re-computed as
follows;
Sl.No Description Amount
a. Loss of dependency
Rs.18,90,000
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.20,40,000
e. LESS: Compensation awarded Rs.15,42,000
by the Tribunal (d-e)
Enhanced Compensation Rs.4,98,000
12. Learned advocate for the insurer contended
that Tribunal has awarded interest at 7% p.a., but this
Court has been consistently awarding 6% interest in motor
vehicle compensation cases. Learned advocate for the
claimants submitted that insurer has not filed any appeal.
The compensation must be just and appropriate and this
Court has been consistently awarding interest at 6%.
Therefore, in our considered view, awarding interest at 6%
throughout is just and appropriate.
13. In view of above discussion, the following;
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part by holding
that claimants are entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.20,40,000/-, as against
Rs.15,42,000/- 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.4,98,000/-; and
(ii) Insurer shall pay the entire
compensation amount of Rs.20,40,000/- 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.
