Karnataka High Court
Namadev S/O Mallappa Heggannavar vs Duragappa S/O Hanamanth ... on 23 March, 2022
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav, K.S.Hemalekha
-1-
MFA No. 101633 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101633 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. NAMADEV S/O MALLAPPA HEGGANNAVAR,
AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. BENAKATTI,
TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591 126.
2. SMT. YAMNAVVA W/O NAMADEV HEGGANNAVAR,
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BENAKATTI, TQ. SAUNDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI 591 126.
3. MANJULA D/O NAMADEV HEGGANNAVAR,
AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BENAKATTI, TQ. SAUNDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI 591 126.
- APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G R TURAMARI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DURAGAPPA S/O HANAMANTH BANDIVADAR,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS,
Digitally R/O. HIRENANDI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI 591 128.
signed by
JAGADISH T R 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
Location: HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
High Court of VIDYANAGAR, OPP KMC HUBBALLI,
Karnataka,
Dharwad TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD 580010.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
MFA No. 101633 of 2021
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173 (1)
OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 20.08.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1302/2018 ON THE FILE OF
THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SAUNDATTI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION & ETC.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, K.S.HEMALEKHA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both
the counsel, appeal is taken up for disposal.
2. The present appeal is filed by the claimants assailing the
judgment and award dated 20.08.2020 in M.V.C. No. 1302/2018
passed by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti and
seeking for enhancement of compensation.
3. The date, time and occurrence of accident is not in dispute. It
is also not in dispute that Irayya Rudrayya Hiremath has
succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road accident that
occurred on 19.10.2017 due to the rash and negligent driving of the
Sonalika Tractor bearing Engine No. 3102IL73A610395Fs and
Chassis No. BZVST615482S3 (offending vehicle) by its driver. The
Tribunal considering the pleadings, evidence and material on
MFA No. 101633 of 2021
record held that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle and fastened liability upon
the Insurance Company and awarded a compensation of
`28,92,248/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition
till the date of realization.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants-claimants
and learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company
and perused the appeal papers.
5. The claimants are the parents and sister of the deceased. It is
the contention of the appellants-claimants that the Tribunal has not
considered the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Satinder Kaur alias
Satwinder Kaur and Others (AIR 2020 SC 3076) and in the case
of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram and others
(2018 ACJ 2782) at the time of awarding compensation and thus
sought for reworking of compensation. Considering the dictum of
the Apex Court in the case of (1) Satinder Kaur and (2) Magma
(supra), the award of compensation needs to be reworked.
MFA No. 101633 of 2021
6. The Tribunal has taken income of the deceased at `19,270/-
per month as the deceased was working as Primary School
Teacher. According to the claimants, gross salary of the deceased
as per Ex.P.10 is `24,620/- per month. Taking into consideration
gross salary of the deceased as `24,620/- per month, deducting
professional tax at `200/- per month, the total monthly income
comes to `24,420/-, to which 50% has to be added towards future
prospects as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others (2017
ACJ 2700). The deceased was a bachelor and 50% of the total
income shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the
deceased. Thus, the total compensation amount towards loss of
dependency would be `35,16,480/- (`24,420/- + `12,210 (future
prospects) = `36,630/- less `18,315/- (personal expenses) =
`18,315/- (total income) x 12 (months) x 16 (multiplier).
7. The claimants are parents and younger sister of the deceased,
who are three in numbers. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court
in the case of Magma (supra), loss of consortium would be at
`40,000/- each, i.e., `40,000/- x 3 = `1,20,000/-. The claimants are
also entitled for `15,000/- towards funeral expenses and `15,000/-
MFA No. 101633 of 2021
towards loss of estate. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total
compensation under the following heads.
Sl. No. Particulars Amount (`)
1. Loss of dependency `35,16,480.00
2. Loss of filial consortium `1,20,000.00
3. Funeral Expenses `15,000.00
4. Loss of Estate `15,000.00
Total `36,66,480.00
8. The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of
`7,74,232/- (`36,66,480.00 - `28,92,248.00) with interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
9. In the result, we pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) Appeal filed by the appellants-claimants is allowed in part.
(2) The judgment and award passed by the learned Prl.
Senior Civil Judge & AMACT, Saundatti dated 20.08.2020
in M.V.C. No. 1302/2018 is modified holding that the
appellants-claimants are entitled for enhanced
compensation of `7,74,232/- with interest at the rate of
6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
MFA No. 101633 of 2021
(3) Apportionment, release and deposit of the enhanced
compensation amount is as per the order of the Tribunal.
(4) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the entire compensation amount with interest
within a period of six weeks from the date of release of
this judgment.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BVV
