Karnataka High Court
Smt.Saroja W/O Late K Siddappa vs Smt.Muthamma @ Hattimuthamma on 16 June, 2023
Bench: S G Pandit, Vijaykumar A.Patil
-1-
MFA No. 100964 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100964 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAROJA W/O. LATE K. SIDDAPPA,
AGE: 29 YEARS, (2ND WIFE OF DECEASED).
2. MINOR MEENAKSHI D/O. LATE K. SIDDAPPA,
AGE: 13 YEARS,
3. MINOR SHANTHI D/O. LATE K. SIDDAPPA,
AGE: 11 YEARS,
4. SMT. DEVAMMA W/O. KATTE REVANAPPA,
AGE: 75 YEARS,
SINCE APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOTHER
Digitally signed by
AND GUARDIAN THE APPELLANT NO.1 SAROJA.
K M SOMASHEKAR
Location:
DHARWAD
Date: 2023.06.21 APPELLANT NO. 1 TO 4 ARE
16:55:10 -0700
R/O: GADIGANUR VILLAGE,
TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI-583223.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. KEERTHI G.K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MUTHAMMA @ HATTIMUTHAMMA,
W/O. LATE K. SIDDAPPA,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
(WIFE OF THE DECEASED),
2. MINOR UMADEVI, D/O. K. SIDDAPPA,
-2-
MFA No. 100964 of 2019
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
(DAUGHTER OF THE DECEASED)
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND
MOTHER MUTHAMMA W/O. LATE SIDDAPPA.
BOTH ARE R/O:GADIGANUR VILLAGE,TQ: HOSAPETE,
PRESENTELY RESIDING AT THIMMALAPURA VILLAGE,
BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583134.
3. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. GANGAMMA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE LORRY
BEARING REG.NO.KA-35/A-1799,
R/O: KATTINA KAMBA, SANDUR TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583101.
4. A. SAIFUDDIN S/O. ALLA BAKASHI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC:OWNER OF THE LORRY
BEARING REG.NO.KA-35/A-1799,
R/O: HOUSE NO.30, 13TH WARD,
BHAGYAJYOTHI COLONY, SANDUR,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583119.
5. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.,
BALLARI-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
(NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED ) (R2 MINOR REP. BY R1)
(NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
01.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1287/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, BALLARI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
MFA No. 100964 of 2019
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, it is taken up
for final disposal, with the consent of learned counsel for
both the parties.
2. The claimants are before this Court praying for
enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded under judgment & award
dated 01.07.2016 passed in MVC No.1287/2014 on the file of
learned Member, MACT-II, Ballari (for short, 'Tribunal').
3. The claimants, who are the wife and minor
children of the deceased K. Siddappa, filed a claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking
compensation for the accidental death of K. Siddappa that
occurred on 11.09.2014 involving Motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-34/W-8247 and Lorry bearing registration
No.KA-35/A-1799. It is stated that the deceased was aged
30 years as on the date of the accident and he was an
agriculturist-cum-shepherd and thereby earning Rs.25,000/-
per month.
MFA No. 100964 of 2019
appeared through their learned counsel. Respondent No.2-
Owner of the offending lorry filed statement of objections
denying the allegations made in the claim petition.
Respondent No.1-Driver of offending lorry adopted the
statement of objections filed by respondent No.2.
Respondent No.3-Insurane Company filed separate
statement of objections denying the averments made in
claim petition. It was contended that the compensation
claimed by the claimants is excessive and exorbitant. Thus,
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Before the Tribunal, claimant No.1- 1st wife of
the deceased examined herself as PW1 and examined
another witness as PW2 and got marked the documents as
Exs.P1 to P9. Respondents did not examine any witness nor
marked any document on their behalf. The Tribunal based on
material evidence on record awarded total compensation of
Rs.11,84,000/- with interest at 6% per annum on the
following heads:
MFA No. 100964 of 2019
Loss of Dependency Rs.8,64,000/-
Loss of expectancy Rs. 30,000/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 30,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 30,000/-
Loss of love and expectation Rs. 30,000/-
Loss of future prospects Rs.2,00,000/-
Total Rs.11,84,000/-
6. While awarding the above compensation, the
Tribunal assessed notional income of the deceased at
Rs.6,000/- per month, deducted 1/5th towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier of 15.
The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal are before this Court
praying for enhancement of compensation.
7. Heard Sri.G.K. Keerthi, learned counsel for the
appellants-claimants as well as Sri.G.N. Raichur, learned
counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and perused
the appeal papers.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants
would vehemently contend that notional income of the
deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month
is on the lower side, since the deceased was an agriculturist-
MFA No. 100964 of 2019
cum-shepherd and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. It is
submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in deducting
1/5th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased,
instead of deducting 1/4th, since the dependents being 6 in
number. It is further submitted that even though the
Tribunal has taken age of the deceased as 30 years, but
wrongly adopted multiplier of 15 instead of 17. It is also
submitted that in the light of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Others1, the claimants would be entitled to
an addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future
prospects, since the deceased was aged below 40 years. It
is further submitted that the claimants being wives, children
and mother of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/-
each towards spousal, parental & filial consortium as held by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram and Others2.
Thus, prays for allowing the appeal.
AIR 2017 SC 5157
2018 ACJ 2782
MFA No. 100964 of 2019
9. Per contra, Sri. G.N. Raichur, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company supporting
the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal would
submit that even though it is stated that the deceased was
an agriculturist-cum-shepherd and earning Rs.25,000/- per
month, the claimants have not produced any cogent or
acceptable document to prove the same. He further submits
that in the absence of any cogent evidence to establish the
avocation and income of the deceased, the Tribunal has
rightly assessed notional income of the deceased at
Rs.6,000/- per month, which is just and proper. He further
submits that the Tribunal on appreciation of the material on
record has rightly awarded compensation under various
heads, which does not call for any interference at the hands
of this Court. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the appeal papers, the only point that
would fall for consideration in this appeal is, whether the
claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation in
the facts and circumstances of the case?
MFA No. 100964 of 2019
11. Our answer to the above point is in the
affirmative for the following reasons:
12. There is no dispute with regard to the accident
occurred on 11.09.2014 involving Motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-34/W-8247 and Lorry bearing registration
No.KA-35/A-1799 resultant death of deceased K. Siddappa.
The claimants are before this Court praying for enhancement
of compensation. It is the contention of appellants-claimants
that notional income of the deceased assessed by the
Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is on the lower side, since
the deceased was an agriculturist-cum-shepherd and earning
Rs.25,000/- per month. To substantiate the said contention,
the claimants have not produced any cogent or acceptable
document. In the absence of any material on record to
establish the avocation and earning, this Court and Lok
Adalath while settling the accidental claims of the year 2014,
would normally assess the notional income at Rs.7,500/- per
month, taking note of the chart prepared by KSLSA based on
various factors including the minimum wage fixed. Therefore,
in the instant case also, in the absence of any corroborative
MFA No. 100964 of 2019
document to establish the income of the deceased, we are of
the opinion that it would be just and appropriate to
determine the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- p.m.
taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA and also
the minimum wage fixed.
13. Further, the Tribunal committed an error in
awarding lumpsum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards future
prospects instead of adding 40% of the assessed income
towards future prospects of the deceased. In the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
clearly held that wherever the deceased was below the age
of 40 years, the claimants would be entitled for addition of
40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. In
the instant case, admittedly, the deceased was aged 30
years as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the
claimants would be entitled for addition of 40% of the
assessed income towards future prospects. Further, the
Tribunal also committed an error in deducting 1/5th towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased and adopting
multiplier of 15. It is well settled law that in case the
- 10 -
MFA No. 100964 of 2019
number of dependents are 4 to 6, 1/4th of the assessed
income has to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased and appropriate multiplier would
be 17 taking the age of deceased as 30 years. Thus, the
claimants would be entitled for compensation on the head of
loss of dependency at Rs.16,06,500/- (Rs.7,500 + 40% x
12 x 17 x 3/4).
14. It is well settled law that the claimants being
wives, children & mother of the deceased would be entitled
to Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal, parental & filial
consortium respectively as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra).
Further, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses awarded by the Tribunal as held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, the
claimants would be entitled for modified compensation on
the following heads:
- 11 -
MFA No. 100964 of 2019
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs.16,06,500/-
(Rs.7,500 (income per
month) + Rs.3,000 (40%
future prospects) =10,500 x
12 (months) x 17 (multiplier)
x 3/4 (1/4th deduction)
2. Loss of estate & Funeral Rs. 30,000/-
expenses
3. Spousal, Parental & Filial Rs. 2,40,000/-
consortium (Rs.40,000/-
each)
Total Rs.18,76,500/-
15. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.18,76,500/- as against Rs.11,84,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
16. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
a) The above appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of
the Tribunal is modified to an extent that
the claimants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.18,76,500/- as
against Rs.11,84,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation amount will
bear interest at the rate of 6% per
- 12 -
MFA No. 100964 of 2019
annum from the date of claim petition till
date of realization.
d) Respondent-Insurer shall deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with
accrued interest before the Tribunal
within six weeks from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this judgment.
e) It is made clear that the claimants shall
not be entitled for interest on the
enhanced compensation amount for the
delayed period of 826 days in preferring
the appeal.
f) Apportionment, deposit and
disbursement of the enhanced
compensation shall be made as per the
award of the Tribunal.
g) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
