Karnataka High Court
Manjula vs M Tabrez Sharief on 22 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:41989
MFA No. 2365 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
M.F. A. NO. 2365 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. MANJULA
W/O C MAHANTESH,
NOW AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
2. KARTHIK C.M.
S/O C MAHANTESH,
NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT INAHALLY VILLAGE,
HIRIYUR TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 599
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
MALA K N 1. M TABREZ SHARIEF
Location: HIGH S/O M MUKTHAR SHARIEF,
COURT OF AGED MAJOR,
KARNATAKA
R/AT IST CROSS,
NEAR GANESH TEMPLE,
V V PURAM,
GUTHAL COLONY, GUTHAL,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 403
2. SUDHIRKUMAR JALAN
S/O K A JALAN,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O PROP, SURFACE TRANSPORT,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:41989
MFA No. 2365 of 2022
AND TRADING CORPORATION,
VEENA KRISHNA, KODIAL GUTHU,
M G ROAD,
MANGALORE.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER
BRANCH OFFICE,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
IST FLOOR, SHARADA COMPLEX,
OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND,
CHITRADURGA-577 501
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
V/O DATED 11.03.2022, NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.07.02.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO.116/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, 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
In this appeal, the petitioners have challenged the
judgment and award dated 07.02.2022 in
M.V.C.No.116/2020 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and
Additional MACT, Hiriyur (for short 'the Tribunal').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall
be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.
NC: 2023:KHC:41989
3. Briefly stated the facts are, 27.09.2019 at
about 10.40 p.m., the son of petitioner No.1 and brother
of petitioner No.2 by name Kishore C.M, the deceased,
while driving a tractor bearing No. KA-14 TA-4663 near
Kapilehatti Village, Hiriyur, hit by a Lorry bearing No.KA-
19 B-3591, killing him at the spot. The petitioners being
the dependants of the deceased have approached the
Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
('the Act' for short) seeking compensation. The respondent
was placed ex-parte. After taking evidence, the Tribunal
allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of
Rs.16,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. Pleading
inadequacy, the petitioners have filed this appeal on
various grounds.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri. N.R. Range Gowda,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Janardhan
Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance
Company.
NC: 2023:KHC:41989
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that the deceased was a bachelor and he
was driving Tractor, doing agriculture and was also
vending milk. Therefore, the income of the deceased taken
by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per month is less and no
future prospects has been added and accordingly, sought
for enhancement of compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that before the Tribunal, written
statement was not filed by the Insurance Company and
therefore, requests that the matter may be remanded to
Tribunal for reconsideration and he has supported
impugned judgment.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
since the Insurance company is not denying the liability,
the claim may be determined here itself.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced on behalf of both parties and perused
the materials on record.
NC: 2023:KHC:41989
9. There is no dispute as to the accident, cause of
the accident, death of the deceased in the accident. The
Investigation papers support that the accident was
occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Lorry.
As on the date of accident i.e., on 27.09.2019, the
deceased was aged 27 years and he was doing agricultural
work and was driving the tractor. To show the agricultural
income of the deceased, the petitioners have produced
Exs. P.8 and P.9 - RTC extracts. For the year 2019, a
person with no income proof will be assessed not less than
Rs.14,000/- per month. Since the deceased was a driver
and was also doing agricultural work, he cannot be treated
as a person with no poof of income. Hence, the Tribunal
has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.15,000/-, but the Tribunal did not consider the future
prospects. In a case of this nature, principles of
assessment of compensation is settled by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. -vs- Pranay
NC: 2023:KHC:41989
Sethi and Others1and Sarla Varma (Smt.) and Others
-vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and Another2.
10. By adopting the said principles, it is proper to
reassess the loss of dependency. Petitioner No.2 is the
brother of deceased, who is major. Therefore, he cannot
be treated as a dependant of the deceased. Since the
deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income has to be
deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the "loss of
dependency" will be:
Monthly income - 15,000/-
Add:40% towards future - 6,000/-
prospects
Total - 21,000/-
Less: 50% towards personal - 10,500/-
expenses
Actual monthly income - 10,500/-
Loss of dependency
10,500x12x17 - Rs. 21,42,000
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2009) 6 SCC 121
NC: 2023:KHC:41989
12. Towards 'Parental consortium to the mother' a
sum of Rs.40,000/- is assessed. Towards funeral expenses
and loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- each is assessed. If all is
summed up, it comes to Rs.22,12,000/- as against
Rs.16,50,000/-, thereby enhancement of Rs.5,62,000/-.
This is the just compensation that the petitioners are
entitled to, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Hence, the appeal merits consideration, in the result, the
following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed in part.
ii) Impugned judgment is modified.
iii) Petitioners are entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.5,62,000/- with interest
at 6% p.a.
iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation within eight weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of the
judgment.
NC: 2023:KHC:41989
v) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal along with records
forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VP
