Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager, Shriram ... vs Mallappa S/O Lachayya Madrki And ... on 30 August, 2023
Bench: Ravi V Byrvhj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200122 OF 2017 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200120 OF 2017
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200121 OF 2017
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200390 OF 2017
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200391 OF 2017
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200392 OF 2017
IN MFA NO.200122/2017:
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
E-8,EPIP RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
Digitally signed SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN.
by
LUCYGRACE
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LINGAMMAA W/O SUBHASHCHANDRA @
SUBBANNA NINEKAR,
AGE:49 YEARS, OCC:H.HOLD,
2. SUBHASHCHANDRA @ SUBBANNA NINEKAR,
S/O GURULINGAPPA,
AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
3. BHEEMASHANKER S/O SUBBANNA,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
AGE:10 YEARS,OCC:STUDENT,
4. CHANDRAKALA D/O SUBBANNA
AGE:13 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
(R2 & 4 U/G OF R.1)
ALL R/O HULGOL VILLAGE, TQ:SEDAM,
DIST:KALABURAGI-585 102.
5. SHANKER CHAVAN S/O TOLARAM,
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:OWNER OF TANKER
NO.KA-32/B-2368, R/O 1/18,
H.NO. 751 TO 1546, NRUPATHUNGA NAGAR,
SEDAM, DIST:KALABURAGI-585 102.
6. GURUSHANTAPPA S/O HANMANTHRAYA,
OCC:BUSINESS, R/O UDAY NAGAR,
SHAHAPUR, DIST:YADGIR-585 202.
(OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE KA-33/J-1742)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ PATIL ADV., FOR R1 TO R4; R5 SERVED;
V/O DATED 22.02.2018 NOTICE TO R6 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.09.2016, IN MVC. NO.903/2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHITTAPUR, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.200120/2017:
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
E-8, EPIP RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR,ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
AND:
1. MALLAPPA S/O LACHAYYA MADRAKI,
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:STONE CUTTER,
R/O HALAKATTA VILLAGE, CHITTAPUR,
DIST:KALABURAGI-585 102.
2. SHANKER CHAVAN S/O TOLARAM,
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:OWNER OF TANKER
NO.KA-32/B-2368, R/O 1/18,
H.NO. 751 TO 1546, NRUPATUNGA NAGAR,
SEDAM, DIST:KALABURAGI-585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ PATIL ADV., FOR R1; R2 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FIFLED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.09.2016, IN MVC. NO. 617/2015 PASSED BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHITTAPUR, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.200121/2017:
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
E-8,EPIP RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
AND:
1. AMBAWWA @ AMBIKA
W/O MOUNESH MADRAKI,
AGE:23 YEARS, OCC:H.HOLD,
2. NAGAMMA W/O HANAMANTHA MADRAKI,
AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:H.HOLD,
3. HANAMANTHA S/O LACHAMAYYA MADRAKI,
AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:LABOUR,
ALL R/O HALAKATTA VILLAGE, CHITTAPUR,
DIST:KALABURAGI-585 102.
4. SHANKER CHAVAN S/O TOLARAM,
AGE:37 YEARS, OCC:OWNER OF TANKER
NO.KA-32/B-2368, R/O 1/18,
H.NO. 751 TO 1546, NRUPATUNGA NAGAR,
SEDAM, DIST:KALABURAGI-585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ PATIL ADV., FOR R1 TO R3; V/O DATED
22.02.2018 NOTICE TO R4 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.09.2016, IN MVC. NO.618/2015 PASSED BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHITTAPUR, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.200390/2017:
BETWEEN:
MALLAPPA S/O LACHAMAYYA, MADRAKI,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: STONE CUTTER LABOUR,
RESIDENT OF HALKATTA, TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST.KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
AND:
1. SHANKAR CHAVAN S/O TOLARAM CHAVAN,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TANKER
LORRY NO.KA-32/B-2368, R/O 1/18,
HOUSE NO. 751 TO 1546,
NRUPUTUNGA NAGAR, SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102.
2. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
E-8, EPIP RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPUR, JAIPUR-302 202.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR ADV., FOR R2; V/O DATED
23.08.2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 23.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.617/2015 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
CHITTAPUR. AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.14,99,999/- ONLY AS
CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT;
ORDER FOR COSTS OF THIS APPEAL.
IN MFA NO.200391/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. AMBAWWA @ AMBIKA
W/O LATE MOUNESH MADRAKI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
NOW NIL.
2. NAGAMMA
W/O HANAMANTHA MADRAKI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
NOW NIL.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
3. HANAMANTHA
S/O LACHAMAYYA MADRAKI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR,
NOW NIL.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHANKAR CHAVAN
S/O TOLARAM CHAVAN,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TANKER
LORRY NO.KA-32/B-2368, R/O 1/18,
HOUSE NO. 751 TO 1546,
NRUPUTUNGA NAGAR,
SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102.
2. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
E-8, EPIP RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPUR, JAIPUR-302 202.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR ADV., FOR R2; V/O DATED
23.03.2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 23.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.618/2015 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
CHITTAPUR. AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF Rs.14,99,999/- ONLY AS
CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT;
ORDER FOR COSTS OF THIS APPEAL.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
IN MFA NO.200392/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. LINGAMMA W/O SUBHASHCHANDRA
@ SUBBANNA NINEKAR,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. SUHASHCHANDRA @ SUBBANNA
S/O GURULINGAPPA NINEKAR,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
3. BHEEMASHANKAR S/O SUBBANNA,
AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
4. CHANDRAKALA D/O SUBBANNA,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
APPELLANT NO.3 & 4 ARE MINORS
U/G OF APPELLANT NO.1 SMT. LINGAMMA,
ALL ARE R/O HULGOL, TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHANKAR CHAVAN
S/O TOLARAM CHAVAN,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TANKER
LORRY NO.KA-32/B-2368, R/O 1/18,
HOUSE NO. 751 TO 1546, NRUPUTUNGA NAGAR,
SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102.
2. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
E-8, EPIP RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR,
JAIPUR-302 202.
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
3. GURUSHANTAPPA S/ HANAMANTHARAYA,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
RESIDENT OF UDAY NAGAR, SHAHAPUR,
TALUKA, SHAHAPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102.
(OWNER OF HERO HONDA MOTOR CYCLE
NO.KA-33/J-1742)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR ADV., FOR R2; V/O DATED
23.08.2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 23.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.903/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
CHITTAPUR. AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF Rs.14,99,999/- ONLY CLAIMED
BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT; ORDER FOR
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A.,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 23.09.2016
passed by Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Chittapur, in MVC
nos.903/2014, 617/2017 and 618/2017, insurer has preferred
MFA nos.200122/2017, 20121/2017 and MFA no.200120/2017.
2. Challenging judgment and award, dated 23.09.2016
passed by Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Chittapur, in MVC
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
nos.903/2014 and 618/2014, MFA no.200392/2017 & MFA
no.200391/2017 are filed by claimants for enhancement of
compensation.
3. Shri. Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for appellant-
insurer submitted that 18.12.2013 Shankar Chavan was riding
motorcycle KA-25/EH-5440(motorcycle no.1) on Wadi-Yadgir
main road when another Motorcycle bearing no.KA-33/J-1742
(Motorcycle no.2) on which Mounesh were riding collided with
each other and fell down on road. Meanwhile tanker-lorry
bearing no.KA-32/B-368, who was driver of said lorry ran over
said motorcycles and riders. In said accident, Shankar Chavan
and Mounesh, riders of motorcycle nos.1 and 2 respectively
died. Mallappa pillion rider of motor cycle no.2 sustained
injuries. Separate claim petitions were filed under Sections 166
of Motor Vehicles Act.
4. MVC nos.617/2017 and 618/2017 were clubbed
together and common evidence was recorded; while MVC
no.903/2014 was proceeded with separately.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
5. On service of notice, owner of lorry did not file
objections. Only insurer filed objections opposing claim petition
and denying negligence for causing accident alleging violation
of policy conditions and compensation claimed as excessive and
exorbitant.
6. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence in MVC no.903/2014. Claimant no.1 was
examined as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to P 5 were marked. No
evidence was led by insurer in MVC no.617 and 618/2015.
Claimant in MVC no.617/2015 i.e., Mallappa and claimant no.1
in MVC no.618/2015 i.e., Ambawwa @ Ambika were examined
as PWs1 and 2 respectively and Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked.
NO evidence was led by insurer. On consideration tribunal held
that accident had occurred due to sole negligence of driver of
lorry and claimants were entitled for compensation and
assessed compensation at Rs.6,88,000/- in MVC no.903/2014,
Rs.9,14,000/- and Rs.72,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
in MVC no.618/2015 and 617/2015 respectively and held owner
and insurer of lorry are liable to pay same. Aggrieved, thereby
insurer was in appeal.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
7. It was submitted that in respect of said accident police
after investigation filed abated charge sheet against Mounesh
rider of motorcycle no.2 under Sections 279, and 337 of IPC;
while driver of lorry was charge sheeted for offence punishable
under sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC. In view of above
placing entire negligence against lorry driver was unjustified
and therefore award of tribunal was unsustainable.
8. On other hand, Shri Nagaraj Patil, learned counsel for
claimants sought to support award insofar as negligence. It
was submitted that on date of accident motorcycle no.1 and 2
had collided with each other and rider/pillion rider had fell on
the road. At that time, driver of insured lorry was driving lorry
in rash and negligent manner and on his failure to stop the
vehicle before it ran over, fell on motorcycles and rider,
accident was caused. Therefore, tribunal was justified in
shifting entire negligence against lorry driver.
9. On quantum, it was submitted that insofar as MVC
no.617/2015-Mallappa was aged about 35 years, working as
stone cutter was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
tribunal has considered lower monthly income a Rs.6,000/-. It
was submitted that he had sustained injuries to left shoulder,
abrasion near left eye and swelling of right occipital region.
Claimant had taken impatient treatment for a period of 3 days.
Therefore award of Rs.72,000/- for said injury was inadequate
and sought for enhancement.
10. In MVC no.618/2015, it was submitted that deceased
Mounesh was aged 22 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per
month working as stone cutter labour. However, tribunal
considered his monthly income at Rs.6,000/- per month, which
was on lower side. It was submitted that without adding future
prospects and awarding inadequate compensation under
conventional heads. Tribunal has passed impugned award and
sought for enhancement.
11. In MVC no.903/2014, it was submitted that deceased
Sharanappa, was aged 18 years, working as labour and earning
Rs.10,000/- per month. However, tribunal considered his
monthly income at Rs.6,000/- per month, which was on lower
side. It was submitted that without adding future prospects and
awarding inadequate compensation under conventional heads.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
Tribunal has passed impugned award and sought for
enhancement.
12. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment
and awards.
13. From above submission and since insurer is in appeal
challenging finding of tribunal on negligence; claimant is in
appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation, following
points that arise for consideration are:
i) Whether apportionment of entire
negligence in causing accident upon
lorry driver was justified and
ii) Whether claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
14. From above submission, it is seen that insurer has
challenged finding of tribunal regarding entire negligence
against lorry driver; while claimants are in appeal for
enhancement.
15. In order to establish actionable negligence against
lorry driver, claimants have produced FIR, complaint, charge
sheet, crime details and M.V. Inspector's report and accident
spot panchanama. On perusal of charge sheet (abated charge
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
sheet) filed against rider of motorcycle no.2 i.e., Mounesh, for
offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC
and Section 187 of M.V. Act, which would indicate that on
Wadi-Yadgir main road near Halakatta village cross, rider-
Mounesh was riding motorcycle in rash and negligent manner
came from wrong side and dashed against motorcycle no.1.
But, main issue arise herein i.e., negligence against lorry driver
would be, whether lorry driver had response time to stop his
vehicle or to maneuver it and avoid running over motorcycle.
Insurer in claim petition had not led any evidence. Driver of
lorry would have been best witness, who would have stated
about accident and precautions/care that had taken while
driving lorry.
16. It is evident that insurer did not even issue notice to
insured/driver seeking particulars about manner of occurrence
of accident. It has also not sought for examining driver. In
absence of same, conclusion of tribunal about entire negligence
on part of lorry driver would not call for interference. Point for
consideration is answered in negative.
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
17. Point no.2: In MVC no.903/2015, deceased
Sharanappa was 18 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
However, same was not substantiated with specific evidence.
Notional income for year 2013 is Rs.7,000/- per month.
Therefore, same has to be considered. Claimants are parents
and minor brother and sister of deceased. Since deceased was
less than 40 years and under self-employment, claimants would
be entitled to 40% towards future prospects, deduction towards
personal expenses would be at 50% and proper multiplier
applicable would be '18'. Thus, total compensation towards loss
of dependency would be:
Rs.7,000 + 40% x 12x 18 x 50%= Rs.10,58,400/-
18. Claimants no.1 and 2 being parents of deceased
would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental
consortium. Claimants no.3 and 4 would be entitled for
40,000/- each towards consortium. Apart from that, they would
be entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Since three years have
been lapsed after rendering decision in Pranya Sethi's
case(supra), they would also be entitled for addition of 10% on
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
award under conventional heads (1,90,000/- + 10%) 19,000/-.
In all, claimants are entitled for total compensation of
Rs.12,67,400/-.
19 In MVC no.618/2015: Deceased - Mounesh was 22
years of age, working as stone cutting labour earning
Rs.10,000/- per month. However, same was not substantiated
with specific evidence. In absence of same, notional income for
year 2013 is Rs.7,000/- per month. Therefore, same has to be
considered. Claimants are wife and parents of deceased. Since
deceased was less than 40 years and under self-employment
claimants would be entitled to 40% towards future prospects,
deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 and proper
multiplier applicable would be '18'. Thus total compensation
towards loss of dependency would be:
Rs.9,800(7000/- + 40%) X 12 X 18 X 2/3= Rs.14,11,200/-.
20. Claimant no.1 - wife of deceased would be entitled to
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium and claimants
no.2 and 3 parents of deceased would be entitled to
Rs..40,000/- each towards 'parental consortium. Apart from
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
that they would be entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. They would
also be entitled for 10% under conventional heads (1,50,000
+15,000). In all, claimants are entitled for total compensation
of Rs.15,76,200/-.
21. In MVC no.617/2015: On perusal of wound
certificate and treatment records, tribunal has observed that
claimant had sustained injury to left shoulder, abrasions to
below the left eye and swelling in right occipital region. For said
injury tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/-towards 'pain and suffering'
is held to be justified. Therefore no interference is called for.
22. Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards medical
expenses. Claimant has produced medical bills for Rs.15,056/-
Same is in complete reimbursement. Therefore, no interference
is called for.
Injured was inpatient for three days. Tribunal has
awarded Rs.5,000/- towards 'attendant and diet charges'. and
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
Rs.5,000/- towards diet and attendant charges which is just
and proper.
23. Tribunal has awarded Rs.2000/- towards loss of
income during laid up period. On over all consideration, said
compensation appears to be just and proper, do not call for
interference. Hence point no.2 is answered partly in affirmative.
24. Consequently, following:
ORDER
MFA nos.200120/2017, 200121/2017 and MFA
no.200122/2017 filed by insurer are dismissed.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to tribunal
for disbursement.
MFA nos.200390/2017, 200391/2017 and MFA
no.200392/2017 are allowed in part.
Insurer is directed to deposit enhanced compensation
within six weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6898
MFA No. 200122 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 200120 of 2017
MFA No. 200121 of 2017
MFA No. 200390 of 2017
MFA No. 200391 of 2017
MFA No. 200392 of 2017
Directions issued by tribunal regarding deposit and
release shall also be applied to enhanced compensation
proportionately.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PSG
