Karnataka High Court
Smt Veena S G vs Sri Shivakumar on 23 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB
MFA No. 5978/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5978/2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT VEENA S G
W/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY B M
NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
2. AMRUTHA B N
D/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY B M
NOW AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
3. CHINTHANA B N
S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY B M
NOW AGED ABOUT 04 YEARS
4. SRI MARIYAPPA
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
NOW AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
Digitally 5. SMT SHIVAMMA
signed by K S W/O MARIYAPPA
RENUKAMBA NOW AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
Location: 2ND & 3RD MINOR APPELLANTS
High Court of
Karnataka REP. BY 1ST APPELLANT AS THEIR
NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER
A1 TO A3 ARE R/AT
SUGURU VILLAGE AT POST
NONAVINAKERE HOBLI
TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT
A4 & A5 ARE
R/AT BHYRAPURA VILLAGE
KUPPALU POST, KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI
TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT ...APPELLANTS
(BY MS.SUSHMITHA G, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB
MFA No. 5978/2022
AND:
1. SRI SHIVAKUMAR
S/O NARAYANASWAMY
NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT KAREHALLI VILLAGE
AT POST, BAGUR HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 131
2. THE MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM M S
GENERAL INSURANCE
NO 237, GURURAJ COMPLEX
NEAR CORPORATION BANK, B M ROAD
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH V/C/O DTD:26.08.2022)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 18.08.2021 PASSED BY V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR IN MVC NO.1313/2019
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for admission, with the
consent of both side, the same is taken up for final disposal.
"Whether the compensation awarded to the
appellants/claimants under the impugned award is just"? is
the question involved in this case.
NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB
2. The appellants were the claimants and the
respondents were the respondents in M.V.C.No.1313/2019 on
the file of V Additional District & Sessions Judge, MACT,
Tiptur. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be
referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the
Tribunal.
3. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3
are minor children and claimant Nos.4 and 5 are father and
mother of the deceased Narasimha Murthy B.M. On
22.03.2019 at 6.45 p.m. when Narasimha Murthy was riding
his motorcycle bearing No.KA-44-V-8630 along with pillion
rider by name Mahalingaiah near Aladahalli gate,
Nonavinakere Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, goods auto-rickshaw
bearing No.KA-06-C-5297 hit the said motorcycle. In the
accident, both Narasimha Murthy and the pillion rider
suffered injuries. Narasimha Murthy was shifted to the
Government Hospital, Tiptur and from there to Victoria
Hospital, Bangalore. On 24.03.2019 at 1.00 p.m. while
under treatment, Narasimha Murthy succumbed to the
injuries. At the relevant time, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were
the registered owner and Insurer of Auto rickshaw bearing
No.KA-06-C-5297.
NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB
4. The claimants filed M.V.C.No.1313/2019 against
the respondents claiming that the accident occurred due to
actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Auto
rickshaw bearing No.KA-06-C-5297. They further contended
that Narasimha Murthy was earning Rs.30,000/- per month
by doing agricultural work and business, they were all
dependent on his income. Thus they claimed compensation of
Rs.30,00,000/- from the respondents.
5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contested the petition
denying actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the
Auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-06-C-5297, age, occupation,
income of the deceased and their liability to pay
compensation. They contended that the accident occurred
due to negligence on the part of the deceased himself.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal
framed the relevant issues. To substantiate the claim of the
claimants, claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1
to P21 were marked on their side. The respondents did not
adduce any evidence.
7. The Tribunal on hearing the parties and relying on
the charge sheet and the other police records which are at
NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB
Exs.P1 to P6 held that, the accident occurred due to
actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Auto
rickshaw bearing No.KA-06-C-5297.
8. The Tribunal relying on Ex.P7 the postmortem
report considered age of the deceased as 33 years. The
Tribunal further held that the claimants failed to establish the
occupation and income of the deceased as alleged and
assessed his income notionally at Rs.7,000/- per month. The
Tribunal deducted 1/4th of his income towards his personal
and living expenses, applied 16 multiplier and awarded
compensation of Rs.10,08,000/- on the head of loss of
dependency.
9. The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of
Rs.11,93,000/- on different heads as per the table below:
Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. Amount in Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 10,08,000/-
2. Transportation, Funeral expenses 25,000/-
and Obsequies ceremony
3. Towards Consortium 25,000/-
4. Towards loss of love and affection 1,00,000/-
5. Towards loss of estate 35,000/-
Total 11,93,000/-
10. Smt.Sushmitha.G, learned Counsel for the
claimants reiterating the grounds of the appeal and relying
NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB
on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla
Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi2 and Magma General
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram3 submits that the
compensation has to be enhanced.
11. Sri B.Pradeep, learned Counsel for respondent
No.2 justifies the impugned award on the ground that the
findings of the Tribunal was in accordance with the evidence
adduced before the Tribunal.
Analysis
12. Challenging the findings of the Tribunal regarding
actionable negligence and assessment of the age of the
deceased, the respondents have not preferred any appeal.
Therefore the findings on those aspects have attained
finality.
13. So far as the income of the deceased, though the
claimants contended that he was doing agricultural work and
business, no concrete evidence was adduced about the same.
Therefore the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income
AIR 2009 SC 3104
AIR 2017 SC 5157
2018 (18) SCC 130
NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB
notionally. The accident occurred in the year 2019. The
deceased was aged 33 years. As there is nothing to show
that he had any disability in earning, considering the
prevailing wage rates and cost of living during the relevant
period, the Tribunal should have assessed the income of the
deceased at Rs.14,000/- per month.
14. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sarla Varma's case referred to supra the deceased
had five dependants, therefore 1/4th of his income has to be
deducted towards his personal expenses. Therefore 3/4th of
Rs.14,000/- comes to Rs.10,500/- (Rs.14,000/- x ¾).
15. Having regard to the age of the deceased, nature
of his work and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case referred to supra, 40%
of the income of the deceased has to be superadded towards
future prospects which comes to Rs.10,500/- x 40%=
4,200/-. Therefore the monthly contribution of the deceased
to the family comes to Rs.14,700/- per month (Rs.10,500 +
4,200/-).
16. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sarla Varma's case referred to supra the applicable
NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB
multiplier for his age is 16. Therefore, the compensation
payable on the head of loss of dependency comes to
(Rs.14,700/- x 12 x 16) Rs.28,22,400/- .
17. The claimants being the wife, minor children and
parents of the deceased were entitled to compensation on
the head of loss of consortium. As per the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case and Nanu
Ram's case referred to supra, they are entitled to
compensation of Rs.40,000/- each with escalation of 10%
which comes to Rs.2,20,000/- on the head of consortium.
18. As per the aforesaid judgments, the claimants are
entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on the head of loss
of estate and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and
transportation with escalation at 10%. The compensation
payable on the said heads comes to Rs.33,000/-. Therefore
just compensation payable to the claimants in this case is as
follows:
Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. Amount in Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 28,22,400/-
2. Loss of consortium 2,20,000/-
3. Loss of estate & funeral 33,000/-
expenses
Total 30,75,400/-
Less awarded by the Tribunal 11,93,000/-
Enhanced compensation 18,82,400/-
NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB
19. Respondent No.2 being insurer of the vehicle is
liable to compensate the same. The Tribunal has awarded
interest at 7% per annum. Even that was not challenged by
the respondents. Respondent No.2 is liable to pay interest
upto the date of the award at 7% and on enhanced
compensation at 6% per annum. For the aforesaid reasons,
the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is partly allowed. The award of the Tribunal
is modified as follows:
(i) The claimants are entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.18,82,400/- with interest thereon at
6% p.a.
(ii) Respondent No.2 being the Insurer shall deposit
the enhanced compensation before the Tribunal within four
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(iii) The award of the Tribunal with regard to
apportionment and investment is maintained.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42268-DB
(iv) Registry shall transmit the trial Court records to
the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KSR
