Karnataka High Court
Smt. C. Vasanthamma W/O Late C. ... vs Dada Peer S/O Ahamed Sab on 2 August, 2024
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10969-DB
MFA No. 103094 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103094 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. C. VASANTHAMMA
W/O LATE C. VEERAREDDY
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
2. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY C.,
S/O LATE C. VEERAREDDY,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
3. RAMACHANDRA REDDY C.,
S/O LATE C. VEERAREDDY,
AGE: 26 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O: HOUSE NO.65(2),
Digitally
signed by
W.NO:21, YERRITHATA COLONY,
JAGADISH T R GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583101.
Location: High
Court of ...APPELLANTS
Karnataka
Dharwad (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA G. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Bench
AND:
1. DADA PEER S/O AHAMED SAB
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE KSRTC
CITY BUS BEARING REG.NO.KA-34/F-1179,
R/O: 1ST DEPOT, BALLARI-583101.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC, BALLARI DIVISION, BALLARI-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
R1-DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10969-DB
MFA No. 103094 of 2018
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.07.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.960/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-V, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
1. This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 13.07.2018, passed in MVC
No.960/2015 on the file of the I-Addl. Senior Civil Judge
and Member, MACT-V, Ballari.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that,
on 05.03.2015 at about 4:30 p.m. when the husband of
claimant No.1 -C. Veera Reddy was alighting bus bearing
registration KA-04/F-1179, the driver of the bus moved the
bus suddenly with a great speed in a negligent manner,
resultantly C. Veera Reddy fell down on the road and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10969-DB
sustained grievous injuries. He was provided with treatment
as an inpatient for 15 days. However, he succumbed to the
said injuries on 22.03.2015. The wife and children of the
deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking
compensation on the death of C. Veera Reddy. It is averred
that, the deceased was aged about 55 years as on the date
of accident and was working as Proprietor of the Firm in
APMC Yard, Ballari and was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. and
was contributing his entire income towards the maintenance
of his family and the accident occurred due to the sole
negligence of the driver of the bus.
3. The respondents entered appearance before the
Tribunal and opposed the claim petition by denying the age,
income and avocation of the deceased. They also denied
that, the accident has caused due to the negligence of the
driver of bus. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the claim
petition.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10969-DB
4. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the
parties. The claimant Nos.1 & 3 have examined as PW1 &
PW2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P127. On
behalf of the respondents, respondent No.1 examined
himself as RW1 and not produced any documents. The
Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence available
on record has awarded total compensation of
Rs.11,85,279/- along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date
of filing of petition till the date of payment by holding that
the respondent-Corporation is liable to pay the said
compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants
are in appeal seeking higher compensation.
5. Shri Manjunath G.Patil, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants submits that, the Tribunal has
committed grave error in assessing the income of the
deceased at Rs.7,500/- p.m. which is on the lower side. It is
submitted that, the Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation under the head of loss of future prospects. It
is further submitted that, the Tribunal has incorrectly
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10969-DB
considered the age of the deceased as 56 years as he was
55 years as per the records. Hence, the appropriate
multiplier would 11 instead of 9. He submits that, even on
conventional heads the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, seeks for enhancement
of compensation.
6. Per contra, Shri Shivakumar S.Badawadgi,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 supports the
impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits
that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper,
does not call for any enhancement. Hence, he seeks to
dismiss the appeal.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and perused the materials
available on record. The point that would arise for our
consideration is as to whether the impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal calls for any interference?
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10969-DB
8. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute the
death of C. Veera Reddy in a road traffic accident, which
occurred on 05.03.2015. Though the claimants pleaded
that, the deceased was Proprietor of the Firm in APMC Yard
at Ballari and was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. but no
evidence is placed on record to substantiate the said claim.
In the absence of any cogent and legally acceptable
evidence on record, we notionally assess the income of the
deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m. placing reliance on the
notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal
Services Authority.
9. The Tribunal is erred in considering the age of
the deceased as 56 years based on post mortem report.
The pleadings and evidence on record indicate that the
deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident.
Considering the same, the appropriate multiplier would be
11. Admittedly, the Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation under the head of "loss of future prospectus".
The deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of death
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10969-DB
and was self employed. Hence, the claimants are entitled to
addition of 10% of the assessed income under the head of
"loss of future prospects".
10. As the legal heirs of the deceased are three in
numbers, appropriate deduction would be 1/3rd towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, the
claimants would be entitled for compensation under head of
"loss of dependency" at Rs.7,74,400/- (Rs.8,000 + 10% x 12
x 11 x 2/3) instead of Rs.5,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. This Court taking note of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram & Others holds
that the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under
the head of loss of consortium in addition to escalation at
the rate of 10%. Similarly, as per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2, the
2018 ACJ 2782
2017(16) SCC 680
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10969-DB
claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- under the head of 'loss
of estate' and Rs.15,000/- under the head of 'transportation
of dead body and funeral expenses' in addition to escalation
at the rate of 10% respectively. Further, the tribunal has
awarded Rs.6,15,279/- towards actual medical expenses
incurred, the same is unaltered. Thus, the claimants would
be entitled to modified compensation on the following
heads:
Particulars Amount
(in Rs.)
Loss of dependency Rs.7,77,400/-
Medical expenses Rs.6,15,279/-
Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/- x 3) Rs.1,32,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.16,500/-
Transportation of dead body and Rs.16,500/-
funeral expenses
TOTAL Rs. 15,29,829/-
12. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.15,29,829/- as against
Rs.11,85,279/- awarded by the Tribunal.
13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10969-DB
ORDER
(i) The appeal stands allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal
is modified to an extent that the injured-
appellant/claimant would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.15,29,829/- as against
Rs.11,85,279/- awarded by the Tribunal.
(iii) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
(iv) The respondent - Insurance Company to pay the
entire compensation amount along with interest to
the claimants within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
(v) Apportionment, deposit and disbursement shall be
made as per the award of the Tribunal.
(vi) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
