Karnataka High Court
Avinash @ Ravi vs Anuradha on 25 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:16611
MFA No. 8692 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4553 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8692 OF 2016(MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4553 OF 2016(MV-D)
IN MFA NO.8692 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. AVINASH @ RAVI
D/O. DIVAKAR SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
2. DIVAKAR SHETTY
S/O. PUTTAASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/OF
HALLIMYSORE VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by (BY SRI. DINESHA.E.P., ADVOCATE)
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. ANURADHA
W/O. T.S.SHIVALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
2. T.S.SHIVALINGAPPA
S/O. LATE SANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
3. RUDRESH
S/O. T.S.SHIVALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:16611
MFA No. 8692 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4553 of 2016
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
HALLI MYSORE VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.M.SHARATH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHETHAN.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
IN MFA NO 4553 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. ANURADHA
W/O T.S.SHIVALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
2. T.S.SHIVALINGAPPA
S/O LATE SANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
3. RUDRESH
S/O T.S.SHIVALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
HALLI MYSORE VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK-573 211.
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G.M.SHARATH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHETHAN.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. AVINASH @ RAVI
S/O DIWKARSHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
HALLI MYSORE VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK-573 211.
HASSAN DISTRICT.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:16611
MFA No. 8692 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 4553 of 2016
2. DIWAKARASHETTY
S/O PUTTAASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT HALLI MYSORE VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK - 573 211.
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DINESHA.E.P., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS ARE FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.03.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.2003/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. HOLENARASIPUR.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS ARE COMING ON
FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Sharath Kumar., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.Chethan.B., for respondents 1 to 3 has appeared in person.
Sri.Sharath Kumar., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.Chethan.B., for the appellants has appeared in person.
NC: 2024:KHC:16611
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts are these:
On the Eleventh day of June 2013 at about 4:30 to 5:50
pm., at Hallimysore - Holenarasipur road, in front of house of
Sri.Rajegowda, Mr.Shambulingeshwara was going on the left
side of the road by walk. At that time, a rider of Hero Honda
Splendor motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-13-K-7612
came in a rash and negligent manner and hit
Mr.Shambulingeshwara. Due to the forced impact, he fell and
sustained severe injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to
Government Hospital, Holenarasipur. After firs aid treatment,
as per the advice of the doctors, he was shifted to Mangala
Hospital, Hassan. Subsequently, he was shifted to NIMHANS
Hospital, Benglauru and again, he was shifted to Victoria
Hospital, but he died without responding to the treatment. The
claimants contending that they are the dependents of
Mr.Shambulingeshwara, filed a Claim Petition seeking
compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:16611
In response to the notice, respondents appeared through
their counsel and filed statement of objections denying petition
averments. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of
the Claim Petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:02.03.2016 partly allowed the
claim petition awarding compensation and directed respondents
1 and 2 jointly severally to deposit the compensation amount.
The respondents and the claimants have assailed the Judgment
of the Tribunal in these appeals on several grounds as set-out
in the Memorandum of appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the respective parties have
urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on
behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers
and also the records with utmost care.
5. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Judgment of the Tribunal requires interference.
6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. Suffice it to note that the accident occurred on the
NC: 2024:KHC:16611
Eleventh day of June 2013 and Mr.Shambulingeshwara
succumbed to injuries. The Tribunal extenso referred to the
material on record and concluded that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its
rider. It is pivotal to note that the second respondent being the
owner of offending motorcycle had not insured his motorcycle.
Taking note of the same, the Tribunal fastened the liability on
the rider and the owner of the motorcycle. In my view, the
conclusion so arrived at by the Tribunal is just and proper. I
find no reasons to interfere with the said finding of the
Tribunal.
The claimants appeal is one for enhancement of
compensation. The grounds urged in the appeal is that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager. It is noticed
that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-
towards Loss of dependency. In the absence of any proof of
income, the chart prepared by the Legal Service Authority must
be taken into consideration. As per the chart, the salary of the
deceased must be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month, if the
accident is occurred in the year 2013. The age of the deceased
was 39 years as on the date of accident, hence the multiplier
NC: 2024:KHC:16611
15 is to be adopted. Hence, the amount towards the loss of
dependency is as under:
CALCULATION OF LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
Future prospects:
It is taken into consideration at 40% as per chart because the
age of deceased is below 40 years.
8,000 X 40% = 3,200
8,000 + 3,200 = 11,200
11,200 divided by 2 = 5,600
11,200 - 5,600 = 5,600
5,600 x 12 x 15 = 10,08,000 Rs.10,08,000/-
In the present case, the deceased left behind his parents
and brother. Hence, they are entitled to compensation under
the head "Loss of consortium". In view of law laid down by the
Apex Court in PRANAY SETHI's case, the interest should be
considered to the loss of consortium at the rate of 10% per
annum for every three years.
40,000 X 10/100 X 2 times = Rs.8,000/-
40,000 + 8,000 = Rs.48,000/-
Rs.48,000/- X 3 = Rs.1,44,000/-.
Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation of
Rs.1,44,000/- towards loss of consortium.
NC: 2024:KHC:16611
This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.33,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Three Thousand only) towards loss of estate,
transportation and funeral expenses.
7. Accordingly, this Court re-determines the
compensation as under:-
1. Towards loss of 10,08,000 Rs.10,08,000/-
dependency
2. Towards loss of 1,44,000 Rs.1,44,000/-
Consortium
3. Loss of estate, 33,000 Rs.33,000/-
transportation and
funeral expenses.
Reassessed Compensation: Rs.11,85,000/-
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant time, this
Court deems it appropriate to award interest at the rate of 6%
per annum on the reassessed compensation amount from the
date of claim petition till realization.
8. Hence, the following:
NC: 2024:KHC:16611
ORDER
1. The Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by
the rider and owner of the motorcycle in
No.8692/2016 is dismissed.
2. The Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by
the claimants in No.4553/2016 is allowed.
The Judgment dated:02.03.2016 passed by
the Court of Senior Civil Judge & M.A.C.T,
Holenarasipur in M.V.C No.2003/2013 is modified
to the extent stated hereinabove.
3. The claimants are entitled for reassessed
compensation of Rs.11,85,000/- (Rupees Eleven
Lakh Eighty Five Thousand only) with 6% interest
per annum from the date of the claim petition till
the date of realization.
4. The first and second respondent are
jointly and severally liable to deposit the
reassessed compensation amount along with 6%
interest within a period of two months from the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:16611
date of receipt of the certified copy of this
Judgment.
5. The Registry to draw the modified award
accordingly.
6. The Registry is directed to transmit the
amount in deposit, if any in MFA No.8692/2016 to
the concerned Tribunal forthwith for disbursement.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
