Nagaraj vs The Head Master
2022 Latest Caselaw 12381 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 12381 Kant
Judgement Date : 12 October, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Nagaraj vs The Head Master on 12 October, 2022

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                            1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                         BEFORE

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

                 M.F.A.No.1899/2013 (MV)

BETWEEN

1.   NAGARAJ
     S/O MADANAIK
     NOW AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

2.   MANJUNATH
     S/O MADANAIK
     NOW AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

3.   RAJU
     S/O MADANAIK
     NOW AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

4.   SAVITHRAMMA
     D/O MADANAIK
     NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

5.   BHAGYA
     D/O MADANAIK
     NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

     ALL ARE R/AT JAVAGAL
     JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK
     HASSAN DISTRICT.
                                            ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KAMALA D K, ADVOCATE)
                                 2



AND

1.    THE HEAD MASTER
      VIDYANIKETANA PRIMARY PUBLIC SCHOOL
      B.H.ROAD, BANAVARA

2.    BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN INS CO. LTD.
      REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
      2ND FLOOR, LAKSHMI COMPLEX
      OPP TO BSNL BHAVAN, B.M.ROAD
      HASSAN
                                                ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI H T JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 SMT. H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)


      THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.07.2012
PASSED IN MVC.NO.49/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT, ARSIKERE AND ETC.


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


                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award

dated 31.07.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.49/2009 on the file of the

Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Arsikere ('the Tribunal' for short).

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and the learned counsel appearing for respondent

Nos.1 and 2.

3. The main contention of the claimant before the

Tribunal is that the claimants No.1 to 3 are the sons and

claimants No.4 and 5 are the daughters of deceased late

Rangamma who met with an accident on 26.01.2009 when she

was walking on the left side of the road. The claimants in order

to substantiate their claim, examined the witness as PW1 and

also got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P4 and the

respondents are also examined the witnesses as RW1 to 4 and

got marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R13. The Tribunal after

considering both the oral and documentary evidence came to the

conclusion that the policy was cancelled and fastened the liability

on the owner of the offending vehicle and awarded the

compensation of Rs.2,36,000/- with 6% interest and the same

has not been questioned by the owner of the offending vehicle.

4. Now, the appellants/claimants are before this Court

seeking enhancement of the compensation. The Tribunal has

taken income of Rs.3,000/- as the deceased was aged about 60

years. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the

notional income would be Rs.5,000/- and compensation awarded

by the Tribunal is very meager hence, it requires interference.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-owner would submit that the record discloses that

the deceased was aged about 60 years at the time of the

accident hence, the question of awarding future prospects does

not arise and the learned counsel appearing for the insurance

company submits that the liability fasten on the insurance

company is exonerated as policy was cancelled hence, the

Tribunal has rightly exonerated the liability.

6. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for

the parties and also on perusal of the documents on record it

discloses that the appellants are the major sons and daughters

of the deceased and the deceased was aged about 60 years at

the time of the accident as per Ex.P4-PM report and there is no

material before the Court to show that whether the deceased has

crossed the age of 60 years hence, entitled for the future

prospects of 10% between the age group of 50 to 60 years.

Hence, 10% has to be added to the income of Rs.5,000/- instead

of Rs.3,000/- which comes to Rs.5,500/- and deduction should

be 1/4th, it comes to Rs.1,375/- and after deducting the same, it

comes to Rs.4,125/- x 12 9 = 4,45,500/-. Apart from that the

appellants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.40,000/- each

on the head of love and affection and also entitled for

Rs.33,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and in

all, the appellants are entitled for the compensation of

Rs.6,78,500/- as against Rs.2,36,000/-.

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

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed.


       (ii)    The impugned judgment and award of the
               Tribunal    dated      31.07.2012           passed     in
               M.V.C.No.49/2009           is    modified        granting
               compensation      of   Rs.6,78,500/-        as    against