S Shankarappa @ Shankarachar vs Umesh Naika
2022 Latest Caselaw 7748 Kant

                       1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF MAY 2022

                     BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5508/2017 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1.   S.SHANKARAPPA @ SHANKARACHAR
     S/O. LATE SUBBACHAR
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
     CARPENTER,
     R/O. ARENAKOPPA
     HARANAHALLI POST,
     SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577201.

2.   SMT. MALATHI
     W/O. SHANKARAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
     HOUSE MAKER,
     R/O. ARENAKOPPA, HARANAHALLI POST
     SHIVAMOGGA TALUK-577201.
                                  ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. K.V.SATEESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   UMESH NAIKA
     S/O. NAGARAJA NAIKA
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
     DRIVER
     R/O. INDIRA COLONY
     SEVALANGA, HONNALLI TALUK
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
                       2



2.   RAVIKUMAR K.G
     S/O.LATE K.G RAMAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
     TRANSPORTER,
     SAVA SIDDI VINAYAKA TRANSPORT
     R/O.B.H.ROAD
     KADADAKATTE, BAHADRAVATHI-577301.

3.   DIVISIONAL MANAGER
     UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
     RUB BUILDING,
     AMIR AHMED CIRLCE
     B.H.ROAD,
     SHIVAMOGGA-577202.
                                RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C.BALAREDDY, ADV FOR R1
SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:28.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.546/2015 ON
THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
AND ADDITIONAL MACT-2, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

 THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
 COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                               3

                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimants against the

respondents challenging the judgment and award dated

28.06.2016 passed in MVC No.546/2015 on the file of II

Addl. District Judge & A.M.A.C.T-2, Shivamogga, seeking

for enhancement of compensation.

2. On 18.05.2015 at about 7.00 a.m., the deceased

has been to his paternal uncle's house to bring milk and

while returning he came near Government Higher Primary

School, Ayanur-Harnahalli road in his cycle on the left side

of the road, at the time, the Lorry bearing Regn.KA-14/B-

3469 came from Harnahalli-Aynuru road in a rash and

negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the

back side of the deceased, as a result of which, the

deceased sustained grievous injuries to his head, neck,

chest and other parts of the body and died on the spot.

3. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the claimants

under Section-166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

claiming compensation for the death of their minor son in

the road traffic accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the

materials on record, allowed the petition in part, and

awarded a compensation of Rs.4,78,000/-, along with

interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Tribunal held

respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein, jointly and severally liable

to pay the compensation.

4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the

appellants and learned counsel for the respondents and

perused the material on record.

     5.    The         learned       counsel    for     the

appellants/claimants    submitted that the appellants are

parents of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 15

years 3 months old at the time of the accident. Since the

appellants have lost their son in the accident, the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the

meager side. It is submitted by the learned counsel for

the appellants that the notional income taken by the

Tribunal is on the lower side i.e., Rs.4,500/- per month

and the same has to be enhanced. He further submitted

that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation

towards loss of future prospects and prays that the same

may be awarded and further submits that the Tribunal has

committed an error in considering the age of the parents

of the deceased while adopting the multiplier, which is not

correct. The multiplier has to be adopted according to the

age of the deceased and further submits that no

compensation has been awarded under the head 'loss of

consortium'. Hence, he prays for enhancement of

compensation amount.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company vehemently

submits that whatever notional income taken by the

Tribunal by considering the age of the deceased is correct.

The deceased was aged about 15 years 3 months. Hence,

he is a minor and the notional income taken by the

Tribunal according to his age is correct. He further

submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is

also correct which needs no interference. Further,

submitted that on all the other heads, the Tribunal has

awarded compensation which is adequate and sufficient.

Therefore, in all, the entire compensation amount awarded

by the Tribunal is perfectly justified and correct.

Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal by

confirming the judgment and award passed by the

Tribunal.

7. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

as follows:

               Loss of dependency                   3,78,000/-

               Transportation      of        dead    25,000/-

               body

               Loss of Estate                        25,000/-

               Loss of Love & affection              50,000/-

               Total                                4,78,000/-

8. In the present case, the deceased was a

student and was aged about 15 years 3 months. The

Tribunal has considered the notional income of

the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month and adopted the

multiplier as per the age of his parents and accordingly

awarded compensation under the head 'loss of the

dependency'. The accident being of the year 2015, in my

opinion, it is on the lower side. As per the chart prepared

by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in

consultation with the Insurance Companies, the notional

income in the absence of proof of income to be adopted for

the year 2015 is Rs.6,000/- per month. Further, 40% has

to be added to the income of the deceased towards future

prospects as per the law down by the Apex Court in

National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16

SCC 680. Further, as per the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma &

Others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn And Another,

considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier

applicable is '18'.

9. Since the deceased was student and bachelor,

50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal

expenses. Thus, under the head 'loss of dependency', the

claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.9,07,200/-

(Rs.6,000+40% = 8,400 x 50% x 18 x 12).

10. The compensation amount awarded by the

Tribunal towards transportation of dead body, loss of

estate and loss of love and affection is correct, which

needs no interference. Further, the appellants being

parents have lost their son when the deceased was aged

about 15 years old. Therefore, the same has to be

considered. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.40,000/-

each is awarded under the head 'loss of consortium'.

11. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled for

compensation under the following heads:-

              Loss of dependency                  9,07,200/-

              Transportation    of   dead             25,000/-

              body

              Loss of Estate                          25,000/-

              Loss of Love & affection                50,000/-

              Loss of Consortium                      80,000/-

              Total                           10,87,200/-

12. Therefore, the appellants are awarded a total

compensation of Rs.10,87,200/- as against the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.4,78,000/-.

Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional

compensation of Rs.6,09,200/- (Rs.10,87,200-

Rs.4,78,000), along with interest at 6% per annum from

the date of the claim petition till its realization.

13. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part.

ii. The appellants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.6,09,200/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Nine Thousand Two Hundred only) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records to the Tribunal along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

      iv.    Draw award accordingly.




                                         Sd/-
                                        JUDGE
VS