Rukmini vs H.E.Raju
2022 Latest Caselaw 12325 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 12325 Kant
Judgement Date : 11 October, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Rukmini vs H.E.Raju on 11 October, 2022

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                  M.F.A.NO.5490/2013 (MV)

BETWEEN:

RUKMINI
W/O. LATE P. SHANKARA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT B.M. ROAD, 7TH HOSAKOTE PO,
HOSAKOTE, SOMWARPET TALUK-571 237.            ... APPELLANT

           (BY SMT. SUMA KEDILAYA, ADVOCATE FOR
          SRI PADMANABHA KEDILAYA V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     H.E.RAJU
       S/O. ERASETTI,
       AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
       R/AT NO.55, KODUMANGALORE VILLAGE
       AND POST, KUSHALNAGARA
       SOMVARPET TALUK-571 236.

2.     RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       TRADE CENTRE, B.N.ROAD
       OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND
       MYSURU-570 001
       (INSURER OF THE LORRY BEARING
       REG. NO.KA 21/A 7789).            ... RESPONDENTS

          (BY SRI D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
       NOTICE TO R1 D/W. VIDE ORDER DATED 21.04.2014)
                                  2



     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.1.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.451/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-1, MEMBER ADDITIONAL MACT,
MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION      AND     SEEKING    ENHANCEMENT     OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 23.01.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.451/2012 on the

file of the Fast Track Court-I and Additional Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Mysuru. ('the Tribunal' for short).

3. The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant in this appeal is that the Tribunal committed an error

in taking 50% towards contributory negligence when the petition

is filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The

other contention is that the Tribunal has taken the age of the

mother of the deceased while computing the loss of dependency

and not taken the age of the deceased, who was 21 years old at

the time of the accident. Hence, it requires interference of this

Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2

would submit that the Tribunal while taking the contributory

negligence relied upon the judgment reported in 2012 (1) TAC

234 in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

VS. SINITHA & OTHERS. The counsel also would submit that

this judgment is of the year 2013 and the judgment of the year

2012 is relied upon. Hence, it does not require interference of

this Court.

6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material available on record, the claim petition is

filed under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicle Act. In view of the

judgment of the Apex Court in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED V. SUNIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER

reported in 2019 (12) SCC 398, the Insurance Company

cannot raise the issue of negligence, when the petition is filed

under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Hence, the

Tribunal has committed an error in taking the contributory

negligence and the same has to be set aside.

7. With regard to the quantum of compensation is

concerned, the Tribunal, while computing loss of dependency has

taken the age of the mother of the deceased and ought not to

have taken the same and ought to have taken the age of the

deceased, who was 21 years old as on the date of the accident

and the relevant multiplier applicable is '17'. While assessing

the compensation towards loss of dependency, the Tribunal has

taken the notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month. Out of the

same, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses. After

deducting the same, the notional income comes to Rs.2,000/-

per month. Hence, taking the income at Rs.2,000/- per month

and the relevant multiplier '17', the loss of dependency works

out to Rs.4,08,000/- (2,000 x 12 x 17).

8. The Apex Court, in the case of KURVAN ANSARI

AND ANOTHER VS. SHYAM KISHORE MURMU AND

ANOTHER reported in 2022 ACJ 166 has held that the

claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards

loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses

and also observed that the amount fixed under the II Schedule

in 1994 is not reasonable and considering inflation and

devaluation of rupee and cost of living, assessed the notional

income in a case of death of a 7 year old girl. Hence, the

claimant is also entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- on the

head of loss of love and affection and Rs.15,000/- towards

funeral expenses. Hence, in all, the claimant is entitled for an

amount of Rs.4,63,000/-.

9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.


      (ii)    The impugned judgment and award of the
              Tribunal     dated     23.01.2013        passed      in
              M.V.C.No.451/2012,          is    modified     granting
              compensation      of   Rs.4,63,000/-      as    against