Karnataka High Court
Juliyani Mundain @ Julyani Mudain vs The Manager on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.724 OF 2019
(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. JULIYANI MUNDAIN @ JULYANI MUDAIN,
W/O LATE BEGURAY MUNDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
2. JYOTISHBHENDARA,
S/O LATE BAGURAY BHENDARA @
BAGURAY MUNDA
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
3. BAHALEN BHENGARA,
D/O LATE BAGURAY BHENDARA @
BAGURAY MUNDA
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
4. GABRIEL BHENGRA,
S/O BAGURAY MUNDA
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,
5. SIMA BHENGRA,
D/O BAGURAY MUNDA
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS.
OKRA KARANJ TALI
ANGRABARI KHUNTI,
JHARKHAND
2
THE PETITIONERS 2 TO 5
ARE MINORS HENCE REPTD BY IS
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER NAMELY
JULIYANI MUNDANI @ JULYANI MUDAIN
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SHRIPAD V.SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
CO.LTD., NO.3, 1ST FLOOR,
MANANDI PLAZA,
ST MARKS ROAD,
BESIDE ST MARKS HOTEL,
BANGALORE - 1.
2. MR.MURTHY V
NO.20, 1ST CROSS,
MATADAHALLI, R T NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 32.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 21.07.2022, NOTICE TO
R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
19.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.903/2017 ON THE FILE OF
THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CUASES JUDGE AND XIX
ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-23) PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
1. Though this appeal is listed for admission, by
consent of the parties it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Parties herein are referred to the original ranks
before the Tribunal.
3. This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'MV Act')
seeking enhancement by challenging the judgment and
award passed in MVC No.1717/2017 on the file of XXI
Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT (SCCH-23)
Bengaluru dated 19.09.2018.
4. There is no serious dispute regarding the factual
aspects of the matter.
5. According to the claimants, on 19.01.2017 at
8.30.p.m. near Kanminike Colony of Bangalore-Mysore
Road, Kengeri Hobli, driver of Mahindra car bearing No.KA-
04-D-8547 belonging to respondent No.2 and insured with
respondent No.1 drove it negligently from Mysore towards
Bangalore and dashed against the deceased Baguray
Munda @ Babu Ram and Mahindra Topno @ Jhagru Topno
who were crossing the road. As a result, deceased suffered
fatal injuries and sustained multiple fractures.
Immediately he was shifted to Rajarajeshwari Hospital and
later on to Victoria and NIMHANS Hospital. But deceased
succumbed because of the injuries on 20.01.2017 without
responding to the treatment.
6. The claimants being wife and minor children of the
deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act
claiming compensation of Rs.40 lakhs with interest
thereon.
7. Claim petition was contested by respondent No.1-
Insurance Company and Tribunal after assessing the oral
as well as documentary evidence has awarded a total
compensation of Rs.11,68,000/- with interest at the rate of
6% p.a. from the date of petition.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the
Tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking
enhancement.
9. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellants - claimants and learned counsel
for the respondent No.1 - Insurance Company. Perused
the records.
10. Learned counsel for the claimants would contend
that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking notional
income of the deceased on lower side at Rs.9,000/-
instead of Rs.11,000/- and the Tribunal has also
committed an error in not adding 25% of future prospects.
Hence, he would request the Court that by adding these
aspects, compensation may be enhanced appropriately.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1-
Insurance Company would support the judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal.
12. Having heard the arguments and perused the
records, it is evident that there is no serious disputes of
the fact that the deceased met with an accident and died
in a road traffic accident dated 19.01.2017. Tribunal has
taken income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- p.m. in the
absence of any material evidence. This Court is
consistently taking notional income at Rs.11,000/- p.m. in
respect of the accidents for the year 2017 in the absence
of any material evidence. Hence, Tribunal has taken the
income at lower side. Though the Tribunal has deducted
1/4 towards personal expenses rightly, it has committed
an error in not adding 25% of future prospects. If income
of the deceased is taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m. and 25% of
future prospects are added, income of the deceased would
be Rs.13,750/- (Rs.11,000/- +25%)= Rs.13,750/-.
Hence, loss of dependency would work out as:
Rs.13,750/- X 12 X 13 X 3/4=Rs.16,08,750/-.
13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- to claimant
No.1 alone and claimant Nos.2 to 5 were together awarded
Rs.60,000/- which is on lower side. Claimants being widow
and minor children of the deceased, each of them are
entitled for consortium. In view of the decision in the case
of Rasmita Biswal Vs. Divisional Manager, National
Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2022) AIR SC 85 each of
the claimants would be entitled for Rs.44,000/- under the
head of loss of consortium. Hence, they are entitled for
Rs.44,000/- X 5 = Rs.2,20,000/- under the head of loss of
consortium.
14. Further, claimants would be entitled for Rs.16,500/-
under the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- under the
head of funeral expenses. Hence, claimants would be
entitled for total compensation under various heads as
under:
Sl. Amount
Heads
No. in rupees
1. Loss of Dependency Rs.16,08,750/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs.2,20,000/-
(Rs.44,000/- X 5)
3. Loss of estate Rs.16,500/-
4. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
TOTAL RS.18,60,250/-
As such the claimants would be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.18,60,250/- as against
Rs.11,68,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence,
considering these facts and circumstances, the appeal
needs to be allowed in part and accordingly, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award passed in
MVC No.1717/2017 on the file of XXI
Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT
(SCCH-23) Bengaluru dated 19.09.2018 is
modified.
(iii) The claimants-appellants are held
entitled for total compensation of
Rs.18,60,250/- as against 11,68,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
(iv) The enhanced compensation shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
(v) The entire enhanced compensation with
accrued interest shall be deposited by
respondent No.1 - Insurance Company
within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
(vi) Deposit, disbursement and
apportionment shall be as per the terms of
the order of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
pgg
