Karnataka High Court
K Manjunatha vs Ravikumar N on 22 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15851
MFA No. 3835 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3835 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. K. MANJUNATHA
S/O. LATE R. KEMPAIAH
Digitally signed by HINDU, AGED 31 YEARS.
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
2. K. MUNIRAMU
KARNATAKA S/O. LATE R. KEMPAIAH
HINDU, AGED 29 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESISING AT NO.147
CHANDRAPPA CIRCLE
CHUNCHANAKUPPE
NEAR BIG BANIYAN TREE
BENGALURU-562 130.
3. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA
W/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY &
D/O. LATE R. KEMPAIAH
HINDU, AGED 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT KANTEERAVANAGARA COLONY
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BENGALURU.
4. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O. NAGARAJU &
D/O. LATE KEMPAIAH
HINDU, AGED 34 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.140, CHANDRAPPA CIRCLE
TAVAREKERE HOBLI
BENGALURU-562 130.
APPELLANTS
(BY SRI T. C. SATHISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15851
MFA No. 3835 of 2019
AND:
1. RAVIKUMAR N.
S/O. NARASIMHAIAH
HINDU, MAJOR
RESIDING AT NO.45, AJJANAHALLI
NEAR CHANDRAPPA CIRCLE
BENGALURU-562 130
KARNATAKA STATE.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
NO.25/1, II FLOOR, BUILDING NO.2
SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING NO.1
M.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2, AND
R-1: NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER
DATED 18-7-2023)
***
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 18-1-2019 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.3801 OF 2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-25), PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:15851
MFA No. 3835 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 18-1-2019 passed in M.V.C.
No.3801 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, whereby, the
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,53,627/- as compensation
with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till the date of deposit.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
shall be referred to in terms of their status before the
Tribunal.
3. The claimants, being the children of
Sri R. Kempaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'),
filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of
their father inter alia contending that on 14-3-2017 at
6:55 p.m., when the deceased was proceeding as a
pedestrian near Chandrappa Circle, Tavarekere Hobli,
NC: 2024:KHC:15851
Bengaluru, a Tata Ace, bearing Registration No.KA-51
3244, driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result, the
deceased sustained grievous head injuries. Immediately,
he was taken to local hospital. Thereafter, he was shifted
to NIMHANS, Bengaluru, and later on, he was shifted to
Victoria Hospital, wherein, he was treated as an in-patient
from 15-3-2017 to 17-3-2017. The injured was again
shifted to Hi-Tech Hospital, Mysore Road, and admitted
from 17-3-2017 to 20-3-2017 and later, he was shifted to
Fortis Hospital, where he was declared to be dead.
4. The claimants have contended that the deceased
was working as a Real Estate Agent and earning
Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to untimely death of the
deceased, they have lost their dependency and hence,
claimed the compensation on various heads.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:15851
6. As there is no dispute regarding the death of the
deceased in a road traffic accident that occurred on
14-3-2017 due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Ace,
bearing Registration No.KA-51 3244, by its driver and
liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only
point that arises for my consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it
call for enhancement?"
7. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and perusing the judgment and award of the
Tribunal, I am of the view that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it is on the
lower side and hence, it is required to be enhanced.
8. In order to substantiate their claim, claimant
No.2-son of the deceased examined himself as PW1 and
got marked nineteen documents as Exs.P1 to P19. On
behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 and 2 were examined
and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.
NC: 2024:KHC:15851
9. The claimants have established the fact that the
driver of the Tata Ace came in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result, the
deceased sustained injuries and declared dead at Fortis
Hospital. The claimants have stated that at the time of the
accident, the deceased was working as Real Estate Agent
and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Apart from oral
evidence of PW1, the claimants have not furnished any
documents to prove that the deceased was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month. The deceased was aged about 60
years as on the date of accident. The accident is of the
year 2017. Having regard to the chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the appropriate
income to be assessed at Rs.11,000/- per month. No
contra evidence is placed by respondent No.2/Insurance
Company in this regard. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are sons
and claimant Nos.3 and 4 are daughters of the deceased,
who are major in age. Therefore, 50% of the income shall
be deducted towards the personal expenses of the
NC: 2024:KHC:15851
deceased and it works out to Rs.5,500/- per month
(11,000 X 50%). The applicable multiplier would be '9' for
the age group up to 60 years and it works out to
Rs.5,94,000/- (5,500 X 12 X 9). This would be the 'loss of
estate' as against Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. In the case of Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others
reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court by referring to the decision of the Constitution
Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) has discussed about
granting the compensation under the head of 'loss of
consortium' and has also issued guidelines for grant of
'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium' and 'filial
consortium'. The claimants are the children of the
deceased. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, the claimants are
entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards 'loss
of consortium' as against Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:15851
11. Further, Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'
and Rs.8,627/- towards 'medical expenses' awarded by
the Tribunal are maintained.
12. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following
compensation:
HEADS Rs.
Loss of estate 5,94,000.00
Loss of consortium/Loss of love and
1,60,000.00
affection (40,000 X 4)
Funeral expenses 15,000.00
Medical expenses 8,627.00
TOTAL 7,77,627.00
Less: Compensation awarded by the
1,38,627.00
Tribunal
ENHANCED COMPENSATION 6,39,000.00
13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to
the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled
for a total compensation of Rs.7,77,627/- as against
Rs.1,38,627/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum on the additional compensation of
Rs.6,39,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition
till the date of its realisation.
NC: 2024:KHC:15851
14. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the additional compensation amount together
with interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment and later, recover the same from
respondent No.1/Owner.
15. On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to
disburse the enhanced compensation in favour of the
claimants on proper identification and the apportionment
of the enhanced compensation shall be made as per the
order of the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KVK
