Karnataka High Court
Rudramma vs The Manager on 20 December, 2023
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46465
MFA No. 561 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 561 OF 2023 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. RUDRAMMA
W/O LATE SOAMSHEKHARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT OBALAPURA, NELAMANGALA TALUK
THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562132
2. SARVAMANGALA
W/O BHANUPRAKASH
AGED 49 YEARS
R/AT MADDENAHALLI, OBLAPURA
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562132.
3. RUDRESH S
Digitally signed S/O LATE SOMASHEKARAIAH
by AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
DHANALAKSHMI
MURTHY R/AT OBALAPURA, NELAMANGALA TALUK
Location: High THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI
Court of
Karnataka BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562132.
4. PANKAJA
W/O NATARAJU K.V.
AGED 42 YEARS
R/AT 4TH WARD NEAR BJP OFFICE
GANGADHARAPURA(SOMESHWARA EXTENSION)
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203.
5. RENUKAMMA
W/O B.KUMARASWAMY
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46465
MFA No. 561 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT YAJAMANARA BEEDI
JAIN TEMPLE ROAD, MANDIPETE
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAGHU R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
THE COCO GEN INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.493, 2ND FLOOR, ANJALI PLAZA
CMH ROAD, INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 038.
2. SHREEKANTH SHETTY K
MAJOR,
NO.1-62, KAKYA, HOSA MANE HOUSE
ULI, BELTHANGAD-574 326
KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANOJ KUMAR M R.,ADVOCATE FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 20.12.2023)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 14.10.2022
PASSED IN MVC NO.248/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU, (SCCH-13), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:46465
MFA No. 561 of 2023
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for
short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by
the judgment and award dated 14.10.2022 passed by the
II Additional Judge & ACMM, Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru in MVC No.248/2021.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 27.07.2020 at about 06.00 and 06.15
p.m., the deceased Somashekaraiah was carrying milk by
riding his bicycle from his place towards obalapura on
Dabaspet-Doddaballapura NH-207 road, when he reached
near obalapura gate, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala
Taluk, the driver of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-19-
MG-1992 drove the same in zig-zag manner and came to
the extreme left side of the road and hit the deceased's
bicycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
NC: 2023:KHC:46465
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of
the Act seeking compensation for the death of the
deceased along with interest.
4. On service of summons, the respondent No.1
appeared through counsel and filed written statement in
which the averments made in the petition were denied. It
was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in
the eye of law. The age, occupation and income of the
deceased are denied. It was further pleaded that the
quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is
exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
The respondent No.3 did not appear before the
Tribunal inspite of service of notice and hence was placed
ex-parte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded
the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case,
NC: 2023:KHC:46465
examined claimant No.3 as PW-1 and another witness as
PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to
Ex.P15. On behalf of respondents, neither examined any
witness nor exhibited any document. The Claims Tribunal,
by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the
accident took place on account of rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of
which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to
the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants
are entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,84,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance
Company to deposit the compensation amount along with
interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the
following contentions:
a) Firstly, claimant Nos.1 to 5 are dependants,
depending upon the income of the deceased. The Tribunal
has erred in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased
towards personal expenses. The same is contrary to the
NC: 2023:KHC:46465
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS -V- DELHI TRANSPORT
CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121.
b) Secondly, considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing
the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has raised the following counter-
contentions:
a) Firstly, claimant Nos.2, 4 and 5 are the married
daughters and claimant No.3 is the major son and they
are not depending upon the income of the deceased.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the
income of the deceased towards personal expenses.
b) Secondly, on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence and considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
NC: 2023:KHC:46465
Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that Somashekharaiah died in the
road traffic accident occurred on 27.07.2020 due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
10. The Tribunal considering the material available on
record, has rightly assessed the notional income of the
deceased as Rs.14,500/- per month.
11. The specific case of the claimants is that the
claimants are depending upon the income of the deceased.
Claimant No.1 is the wife and others are children of the
deceased. Therefore, considering the evidence of the
parties and material available on record, I am of the
opinion that it appropriate to deduct 1/3rd of the income of
NC: 2023:KHC:46465
the deceased towards personal expenses. Thus, the
monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.9,667/-. The
Tribunal has also rightly applied the multiplier as '7'. Thus,
the claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.8,12,028/- (Rs.9,667*12*7) on account of 'loss of
dependency'.
12. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the
other heads are just and reasonable.
13. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 8,12,028
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 20,000
Loss of consortium 2,00,000
Total 10,47,028
14. In the result, I pass the following order:
NC: 2023:KHC:46465
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.10,47,028/- as against Rs.8,84,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount along with interest @ 6%
p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date
of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA
