Karnataka High Court
Smt G R Prema vs Pemmaiah on 20 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46832
MFA No. 6579 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6579 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. G.R. PREMA,
W/O LATE G N RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
2. SHANMUKHA,
S/O LATE G N RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
AND RESIDING WITH MOTHER-
GUARDIAN/APPELLANT NO.1.
3. MANJULA,
D/O LATE G N RAVI,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS,
signed by JAI SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
JYOTHI J
Location: AND RESIDING WITH MOTHER-
HIGH COURT GUARDIAN/APPELLANT NO.1
OF
KARNATAKA
4. KUSUMAVATHI,
W/O NINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
APPELLANT NO.1 TO 4 ARE
RESIDING AT GOWDAHALLY VILLAGE,
SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI,
SOMWARAPETE TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46832
MFA No. 6579 of 2017
AT PRESENT R/AT
HENTAGEREKOPPALU ROAD,
BEHIND K H B QUARTERS,
PETE, ARAKALAGUDU,
ARAKALAGUD TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY MS. SOWKHYA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HARISH N K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PEMMAIAH,
S/O A C PONNACHA,
NARURU VILLAGE,
DEVARABANA ESTATE,
CHANGADAHALLY VILLAGE,
SAKALESHPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.
2. THE MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP:TOWN HALL, 1ST FLOOR
MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 03.03.2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED12.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1444/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, &
MEMBER, MACT, ARKALGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:46832
MFA No. 6579 of 2017
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award passed in
M.V.C.No.1444/2015 dated 12.08.2016 by the Senior Civil
Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Arkalgud, the
claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of
the compensation. The claim petition was filed seeking
compensation of an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- for the
death of the deceased in the accident that took place on
05.04.2015. The claimants are four in number i.e., the
wife, mother and children of the deceased.
2. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased
was an agriculturist and earning an amount of Rs.30,000/-
per month, but the Court below had taken the income at
Rs.5,000/- per month and granted compensation under
the following heads:
NC: 2023:KHC:46832
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Towards Medical expenses Rs. 31,900/-
2. Towards Loss of dependency Rs. 6,75,000/-
3. Towards Consortium Rs. 50,000/-
4. Towards Loss of love and Rs. 50,000/-
affection
5. Towards Loss of estate Rs. 25,000/-
6. Towards Funeral, obsequious Rs. 25,000/-
and transportation expenses
Total Rs. 8,56,900/-
3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants
submits that the Court below has not granted a just and
reasonable compensation. It is submitted that this is an
accident of the year 2015 and the Court below had taken
the income at Rs.5,000/- per month which is on the lower
side. It is further submitted that the deceased was about
37 years old and the Court below ought to have taken
40% future prospectus, but it was not considered. It is
submitted that on the other heads also, the compensation
that was awarded by the Tribunal is not just and
reasonable.
NC: 2023:KHC:46832
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company submits that as there was no evidence, the
Court below had rightly taken the income at Rs.5,000/-
per month. He submits that the compensation that was
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and no
grounds are made out for enhancing the compensation.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the entire material on record. In this case,
according to the claimants, the deceased was working as
an agriculturist and earning an amount of Rs.30,000/- per
month and no evidence is placed on record in support of
the same. Considering the fact that this is an accident of
the year 2015, this Court is taking the income at
Rs.9,000/- and as he was aged 37 years, future
prospectus @40% would come to Rs.9,000+Rs.3,600 =
Rs.12,600/-. As there are four claimants, 1/4th has to be
deducted towards personal expenses i.e., Rs.12,600-
Rs.4,200 = Rs.8,400/-. Then the contribution to the
family would come to Rs.8,400x12x15= Rs.15,12,000/-
NC: 2023:KHC:46832
i.e., under the head of loss of dependency the claimants
are entitled for the said amount. Towards consortium,
considering the enhancement of 10% for every three
years, it would come to Rs.48,000x4 = Rs.1,92,000/-.
Towards funeral expenses an amount of Rs.36,000/- is
granted. Towards medical expenses, the Court below had
granted an amount of Rs.31,900/- which is based on the
evidence and no interference is called for.
6. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M.
MALATHI AND ANOTHER1, the claimant is entitled for an
amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.
Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an
amount of Rs.17,81,900/-.
7. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the
compensation under the following heads:
(2014) 11 SCC 178
NC: 2023:KHC:46832
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Loss of dependency : Rs. 15,12,000/-
2. Consortium : Rs. 1,92,000/-
3. Funeral expenses : Rs. 36,000/-
4. Medical expenses : Rs. 31,900/-
5. Legal Expenses : Rs. 10,000/-
TOTAL : Rs.
17,81,900/-
8. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimants is
allowed-in-part by enhancing the compensation from an
amount of Rs.8,56,000/- to Rs.17,81,900/- setting aside
the award passed in M.V.C.No.1444/2015 dated
12.08.2016.
i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realization. The claimant will not be entitled for
any interest for the delayed period.
ii. The respondent - insurance company shall
deposit the amount within a period of eight
NC: 2023:KHC:46832
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the
judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is
entitled to withdraw the entire amount without
furnishing any security.
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. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
JUDGE
MEG
CT: BHK
