Karnataka High Court
Sri B L Rangappa vs Sri Ramakrishnappa on 8 June, 2023
Bench: C M Joshi
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:19643
MFA No. 2391 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2391 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B. L. RANGAPPA
S/O LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
2. SMT. SANNANAGAMMA
W/O B. L. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
3. SRI. LINGARAJU
S/O B. L. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BELLADAMADUGU VILLAGE
DODDERI HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572132.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by T S (BY SRI. SATHISHA T., ADVOCATE)
NAGARATHNA
Location: High
Court of AND:
Karnataka
1. SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT BELLADA MADUGU VILLAGE
DODDERI HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572132.
2. THE MANAGER
TATA AIG GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
2ND FLOOR, BALAJI TOWERS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:19643
MFA No. 2391 of 2022
BEHIND TGMC BANK
OPP TUMAKURU UNIVERISTY
B.H.ROAD, TUMAKURU-572102
NOW REPRESENTED BY
THE MANAGER
TATA AIG GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
J.P. AND DEVI
JUMBUKESHWAR ARCADE
3RD FLOOR, MILLARS ROAD
VASANTHANAGARA
BENGALURU-560052.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE, ADVOCATE
V/O DTD 15.03.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.30.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1117/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT, MADHUGIRI, 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:
JUDGMENT
By consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal
though it is listed for admission.
The petitioners in MVC.No.1117/2018 before the Principal
Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Madhugiri have approached this
Court in an appeal assailing the correctness of the judgment
and award dated 30.11.2021.
NC: 2023:KHC:19643
MFA No. 2391 of 2022
2. The appellants/petitioners contended that they are
the parents and brothers of one Maheshkumar who died in a
road traffic accident. It was contended that on 04.04.2018 at
around 05.00 p.m., the deceased Maheshkumar was
proceeding from Belladamadagu as pedestrian and the Tractor
bearing No.KA-35-T-6893 came in a rash and negligent manner
and hit the deceased resulting in his death. After investigation,
a charge sheet was also filed against the driver of the Tractor.
The petitioners contended that the deceased was aged about
22 years and he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by doing
agriculture and milk vending business. The petitioners being
the dependents of the deceased are entitled for the
compensation.
3. On being issued with the notice, the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the vehicle have
appeared before the Tribunal and filed their written statements.
4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have denied the claim
of the petitioners that it is highly exorbitant, imaginary,
untenable and also disputed the age and income of the
deceased Maheshkumar.
NC: 2023:KHC:19643
MFA No. 2391 of 2022
5. The respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle
contended that it was insured by the respondent No.2 and
therefore, the liability may be fastened upon the respondent
No.2. However, the respondent No.2 contended that the terms
and conditions of the policy were violated.
6. After framing the necessary issues, the evidence
was led in by the petitioners in the form of PWs.1 to 3 and the
documents were marked as Exs.P1 to 9. The officials of the
respondent No.2 was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R1 to R3 were
marked.
7. After hearing both the side, the Tribunal awarded
the compensation of Rs.15,06,600/- by holding the notional
income of the deceased at Rs.9,500/- per month. It had also
deducted 50% of the income towards his personal expenses
and had given a escalation of 40% towards the 'future
prospects'.
8. Now the appellants/petitioners have approached
this Court in appeal assailing the quantum of compensation.
NC: 2023:KHC:19643
MFA No. 2391 of 2022
9. On issuance of notice, the respondent No.2-
Insurance Company has appeared through its counsel. The
notice to the respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle is dispensed
with. The trial Court records have been secured.
10. The arguments by both the sides are heard.
11. The only contention of the appellants is that the
compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency' is
erroneous and the notional income should have been taken at
minimum of Rs.12,500/- per month. Learned counsel for the
appellants relied on the guidelines issued by the Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority for settlement of claims before
the Lok Adalat.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and
there is no need for enhancement.
13. It is noticed that the guidelines issued by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settlement of
disputes before Lok Adalat prescribed a notional income of
NC: 2023:KHC:19643
MFA No. 2391 of 2022
Rs.12,500/- per month for the year 2018. In umpteen number
of cases, it has been held by this Court that the guidelines
issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority are in
general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum
Wages Act. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased
should have been taken at Rs.12,500/- per month for
calculating the loss of dependency. The age of the deceased is
not in dispute. Therefore, the 'loss of dependency' is calculated
by adopting Rs.12,500/- per month as notional income and by
giving an enhancement of 40% towards 'future prospects', the
effective multiplicand would be Rs.17,500/-. Hence, 'loss of
dependency' is calculated as Rs.17,500/- X 12 X 17 X 50% =
Rs.17,85,000/- by holding the 'personal expenses' at 50% and
adopting the multiplier '17'. The enhanced amount would be
Rs.4,28,400/- (Rs.17,85,000/- - Rs.13,56,600/-).
14. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
the remaining heads do not require any modification as it is
just and proper. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed
in part and hence, the following:
NC: 2023:KHC:19643
MFA No. 2391 of 2022
ORDER
The appeal is allowed-in-part.
The appellants are entitled for an additional
compensation of Rs.4,28,400/- along with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization.
The respondent No.2-Insuance Company is
directed to deposit the compensation within a period
of six weeks from today.
The order of the Tribunal regarding
apportionment and fixed deposit remain unchanged.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NR
