Karnataka High Court
Smt Sumithra vs Sri Srinivasaiah on 22 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42024
MFA No. 2892 of 2014
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
MFA NO. 2892 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT SUMITHRA
W/O. LATE SRINIVASA
AGEDA BOUT 25 YEARS
2. S. NAVYASREE
D/O. LATE SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS
3. S. LALITHA
D/O. LATE SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS
APPELLANT NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
BEING REP. BY THEIR MOTHER-CUM-NATURAL
GUARDIAN FIRST APPELLANT SMT. SUMITHRA
4. SMT.MUNIYELLAMMA
W/O. ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
Digitally signed by MALA K N 5. SRI ANJINAPPA
Location: HIGH COURT OF S/O. LATE RAMIAH
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT KAMARASANAHALLI VILLAGE
JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, KATTIGENAHALLI POST
HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SUGUNA R REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI SRINIVASAIAH
S/O. MUNIYAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42024
MFA No. 2892 of 2014
R/AT NO.24, HALASAHALLI VILLAGE
DASARAHALLI POST, BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT-562 114
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARA ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, FLOOR NO.186/7
1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD
WILSON GARDEN BELOW
SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD.
BANGALORE-560 027 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADV. FOR R2;
R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.07.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.2895/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioners have challenged the
judgment and award dated 23.07.2013 passed in
M.V.C.No.2895/2012 by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Court of small Causes at Bangalore (SCCH-15)
('the Tribunal' for short).
NC: 2023:KHC:42024
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the
parties shall be referred to as per their status before the
Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, the husband of
petitioner No.1, father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and son
of petitioner Nos.4 and 5 by name Srinivasa, the
deceased, while riding TVS motor cycle bearing No.KA-
53/E-9282 in front of Government School at
Jadigenahalli of Hosakote taluk hit by car bearing
No.KA-03/MD-4516 injuring him. Inspite of providing
him the best treatment, he succumbed to death.
Claiming that the deceased was aged 29 years doing
carpentry work and also floriculture and earning
Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- per day from carpentry work and
Rs.2,50,000/- from floriculture, have approached the
Tribunal seeking grant of compensation of Rs.18 lakhs.
The claim was opposed by the respondents. After taking
the evidence, the Tribunal awarded Rs.14,57,000/- with
interest @ 8% per annum. Pleading inadequacy and
NC: 2023:KHC:42024
seeking enhancement of compensation, the petitioners
have filed this appeal on various heads.
4. Heard the arguments of Smt.Suguna R.Reddy,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Ravi
S.Samprathi, learned counsel for Insurance Company.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that the deceased apart from doing
carpentry work was doing floriculture in his agricultural
land and in support of the same, letter issued by
Keerthana Flower Stall is relied. Inspite of it, the
Tribunal has considered the income at Rs.5,000/- per
month and awarded lesser compensation and sought for
enhancement.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that the Tribunal has erred in
taking future prospects at 50% for a person with no
proof of income instead of 40%. the compensation
under conventional heads is against the settled
NC: 2023:KHC:42024
principles and he sought for re-assessment of the
compensation.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and
perused the records.
8. The material on record did point out that there
was an accident involving the motor cycle and the car
injuring the deceased. There is no scope for
contributory negligence and the petitioners being the
wife, children and parents as dependants are entitled to
claim compensation. The deceased is said to be
carpenter and also floriculturist. To establish the
avocation of the deceased, Ex.P15 is the RTC extract
which shows that the deceased was doing agriculture in
9 acres 7 guntas at Honachanahalli, Hoskote taluk. The
Tribunal has taken income at Rs.5,000/-. The deceased
left behind his wife, two minor children and his parents.
There are five dependants in the family. A person doing
carpentry work and floriculture will earn more income
NC: 2023:KHC:42024
than a coolie. The accident is of the year 2012 and a
person will earn not less than Rs.8,000/- per month.
Hence, the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the
lower side.
9. In a case of this nature, compensation has to
be determined by following the principles settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. -
vs- Pranay Sethi and Others 1 and Sarla Varma
(Smt.) and Others -vs- Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another2 so also the principle laid
down in Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. -Vs-
Bhagat Singh Rawat & Ors.3
10. Taking into consideration all these factors,
since the deceased left behind five dependants, 1/4th
has to be deducted towards personal expenses and for
his age of 30 years, future prospects of 40% has to be
taken. Then the loss of dependency will be: Rs.8,000/-
+ Rs.3,200/- (40%) = Rs.11,200/- - Rs.2,800/- (1/4th)
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2009) 6 SCC 121
Civil Appeal Nos.2410-2412/2023, decided on 27.03.2023
NC: 2023:KHC:42024
= Rs.8,400/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.17,13,600/-. The
petitioners have spent Rs.14,500/- towards medical
expenses, that has to be reimbursed. Towards loss of
consortium to the wife at Rs.40,000/-, loss of love and
affection to other petitioners together at Rs.50,000/-;
towards funeral expenses and loss of estate at
Rs.15,000/- each, amounting to Rs.1,20,000/-. Since
the claim is of the year 2012, in view of the judgment in
Bhagat Singh Rawat's case (supra), 10% appreciation
for each 3 years if added, it comes to Rs.36,000/-.
Then the compensation under conventional heads
comes to Rs.1,56,000/-. Totally, the petitioners are
entitled to compensation of Rs.18,84,100/- as against
Rs.14,57,000/- assessed by the Tribunal. Hence,
petitioners are entitled for enhancement of
Rs.4,27,100/-, which is the just compensation to which
the petitioners are entitled. Hence, the appeal merits
consideration. In the result, the following:
NC: 2023:KHC:42024
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award is
modified;
(iii) The petitioners are entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.4,27,100/- with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum on the
enhanced compensation from the date of
petition till its realization;
(iv) Rest of the judgment and award of the
Tribunal is kept intact;
(v) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount within eight weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this judgment.
(vi) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KNM
CT:HS
