Karnataka High Court
T Rajappa vs B L Shivakumaraswamy on 5 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14269
MFA No. 7921 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7921 OF 2014(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. T.RAJAPPA
S/O THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
2. VENKATESH
S/O RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
3. NAGAMMA
D/O RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
4. MARUTHI
S/O RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
Digitally signed by ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS,
THEJASKUMAR N R/O AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B.L.SHIVAKUMARASWAMY
S/O B.G.LOKESHWARAPPA,
AGE 53 YEARS,
OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING
NO.KA-16-A-6392,
AND B.G.TRADERS, APMC,
R/O NEAR THE HOUSE OF MAHALINGAPPA,
GAREHATTI, CHITRADURGA-577 501.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14269
MFA No. 7921 of 2014
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
OPP: BAPUJI AUDITORIUM,
MCC-B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1-HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED:24.06.2019
BY SRI. K.SRIDHAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.12.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.05/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HOLALKERE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Shashidhara.R., learned counsel for the appellants and
Sri.K.Sridhar., learned counsel for respondent No.2 have
appeared in person.
Emergent Notice to the respondents was ordered on
30.01.2015. A perusal of order sheet depicts that respondent
No.1 is held sufficient vide order dated:24.06.2019. He has
neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the
case as party in person.
NC: 2024:KHC:14269
2. The claimants have assailed the Judgment of the
Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the
Memorandum of appeal.
3. 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.
4. The point that requires consideration is whether the
claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation.
5. The Claimants appeal is one for enhancement of
compensation. The grounds urged in the present appeal is that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager.
6. 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.6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand Five
Hundred only) per month, if the accident is occurred in the year
2011. The age of the deceased was 46 years as on the date of
accident, hence the multiplier 13 is to be adopted. Hence, the
amount towards the loss of dependency is as under:
NC: 2024:KHC:14269
CALCULATION OF LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
Future prospects:
It is taken into consideration at 25% as per chart because the
age of deceased is between 40 to 50 years.
6,500 X 25% = 1,625
6,500 + 1,625 = 8,125
8,125 divided by 3 = 2,708
8,125 - 2,708 = 5,417
Rs.5,417 x 12 x 13 = 8,45,052 Rs.8,45,052/-
In the present case, the deceased left behind her
husband, two sons and one daughter. 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 = Rs.8,000/-
40,000 + 8,000 = Rs.48,000/-
Rs.48,000/- X 4 = Rs.1,92,000/-.
Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation of
Rs.1,92,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Two Thousand only)
towards loss of consortium.
NC: 2024:KHC:14269
This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.33,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Three Thousand only) towards loss of estate and
transportation of the dead body, funeral and obsequies
ceremonies.
The treatment expenses awarded by the Tribunal remains
intact.
7. Accordingly, this Court re-determines the
compensation as under:-
1. Towards loss of 8,45,052 Rs.8,45,052/-
dependency
2. Towards loss of 1,92,000 Rs.1,92,000/-
Consortium
3. Loss of estate & 33,000 Rs.33,000/-
transportation of dead
body and funeral and
obsequies.
4. Treatment expenses 1,18,055 Rs.1,18,055/-
Reassessed Compensation: Rs.11,88,107/-
The Tribunal has rejected the claim petition against the
Insurance Company and directed the first respondent owner to
NC: 2024:KHC:14269
deposit the compensation amount. Applying the principle of pay
and recovery, the Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the
entire compensation amount with a liberty to recover the same
from the owner of the offending vehicle.
Counsel Sri.Shashidhara.R., on instruction submits that
the owner of the offending vehicle has not deposited the award
amount till today.
The oral submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellants is placed on record.
8. Hence, the following:
ORDER
1. The Miscellaneous First appeal is
allowed and the Judgment dated:31.12.2013
passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT,
Holalkere in M.V.C No.05/2012 is modified to the
extent stated hereinabove.
2. The claimant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.11,88,107/- (Rupees Eleven
Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand One Hundred and
NC: 2024:KHC:14269
Seven only) with 6% interest per annum from the
date of the claim petition till the date of realization.
3. The second respondent - Insurance
Company is directed to deposit entire compensation
amount along with 6% interest within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of the certified
copy of this Judgment.
4. Needless to observe that the claimant is
not entitled for the interest for delayed period.
5. The Registry to draw the modified award
accordingly.
6. Office is directed to transmit the original
records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRP
