Karnataka High Court
Sri Umapathi S/O Meti Gouda vs Sri K Shivareddy S/O Thimmareddy on 5 December, 2023
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14219
RP No. 100074 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REVIEW PETITION NO.100074/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI UMAPATHI
S/O. METI GOUDA,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2. SMT. SHARANAMMA
W/O. UMAPATHI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE.
3. SRI. BASAVANA GOUDA
S/O. UMAPATHI,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: NIL.
4. KUMARI MANJAMMA D/O. UMAPATHI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: NIL.
ALL ARE R/O: YERRANGALI VILLAGE,
TQ: DIST: BALLARI - 583 101.
Digitally ...PETITIONERS
signed by (BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
SUJATA
SUBHASH
PAMMAR AND:
1. SRI K. SHIVAREDDY
S/O. THIMMAREDDY,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR AND TRAILER
NO.KA-35/T-5124 AND 5125,
R/O: YERANGALI VILLAGE,
TQ: DIST: BALLARI - 583 101.
2. SRI M.H. NAGARAJA
S/O. M.H.HALLADA RAYAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF THE TRACTOR AND TRAILER
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14219
RP No. 100074 of 2023
NO.KA-35/T-5124 AND 5125,
R/O: METRI, TQ:SANDUR
TQ: DIST: BALLARI - 583 101.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD,
OPPOSITE TO RADHIKA TALKIES
RAGHAVACHARI ROAD, BALLARI.
4. SRI. M.PALAKSHA GOUDA
S/O. M.S.UMAPATHY,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: DRIVER OF THE HERO HONDA MOTOR CYCLE
NO.KA-34/V-1621,
R/O: YERANGALI VILLAGE,
TQ: DIST: BALLARI.
5. SRI. M.POMPANNA GOUDA
S/O. M.S.UMAPATHY,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF THE HERO HONDA MOTOR CYCLE
NO.KA-34/V-1621,
R/O: YERANGALI VILLAGE,
TQ:DIST: BALLARI - 583 101.
6. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
MELGIRI PLAZA, MC.C. 'B' BLOCK,
DENTAL COLLEGE ROAD,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1, R2, R3 TO R6 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE (1)
OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
11.10.2023 IN MFA NO.101594/2015 (MV) PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT ONLY INSOFAR IT RELATES TO AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION UNDER THE HEAD LOSS OF DEPENDENCY AND
AWARD THE COMPENSATION BY TAKING INCOME OF THE
DECEASED MINIMUM AT RS.20,000/- PER MONTH, BY ALLOWING
THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION AS PRAYED FOR WITH COST, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14219
RP No. 100074 of 2023
ORDER
The review petition is filed by the claimants on the
ground that the monthly income is taken as Rs.9,000/- per
month. Considering that the deceased is a Diploma holder in
Mechanical Engineering being a mason and canvassed on the
ground that holding of this income of Rs.9,000/- per month is
error apparent on the face of the record by considering the
deceased is a Diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants
places reliance on the division bench judgment of this Court
dated 18.01.2016, in MFA No.102137/2014 in the case of
Sri Ramesh S/o Dundappa Ghodageri and another vs.
Nandini Shiva and other, and submitted that in the said
judgment, the division bench of this Court has hold income of
Rs.20,000/- per month in case of death of deceased who was
Diploma student, 4th semester of Computer Science
Engineering. Therefore, requested to hold the income of
Rs.20,000/- per month in this case also.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent-insurance company submitted that the accident is
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14219
of the year 2010. Therefore, for Diploma holder income held by
this Court at Rs.9,000/- per month is correct. Therefore,
justified the order passed by this Court while determining the
compensation and thus, prayed to dismiss the review petition.
4. The review petition is filed on the ground that the
deceased is a Diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering and
therefore, to take monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. In the above
said judgment, holding of monthly income of Rs.20,000/- for
Diploma student is an opinion followed by this Court, but not
law laid down on this aspect. Therefore, the said judgment
cannot be followed so far as monthly income is concerned.
5. Admittedly, in the present case, the deceased has
completed Diploma course in Mechanical Engineering and
deceased died in the accident on 15.08.2009. Considering the
deceased died in the year 2009 and what would have been
income of the deceased at that time if he had been employed in
any company and considering the price of commodity, cost
index, rate of implosion and other factors in the year 2009, a
Diploma graduate at least must have been earning an income
of Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, it is just and proper to
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14219
consider the monthly income of Rs.10,000/- per month as
above stated. Therefore, the compensation amount determined
by this Court is to be reviewed. Accordingly, the compensation
granted and loss of dependency is reviewed and modified as
follows:
Rs.15,12,000/- (Rs.10,000 + 40% minus 50% x 12 x 18)
6. Therefore, review petitioners/claimants are entitled
for compensation of Rs.15,12,000/- under the head of loss of
dependency. The compensation awarded under other heads is
kept intact. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed in
terms stated above.
SD/-
JUDGE
SSP
CT-ASC
