Karnataka High Court
Sreedevi vs Divisional Controller on 7 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31574
MFA No. 978 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 978 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SREEDEVI
W/O LATE THIPPESWAMY
@ THIPPANNA RANGAPPA EMMEHATTI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
2. MARUTHI H. T.,
S/O LATE THIPPESWAMY
@ THIPPANNA RANGAPPA EMMEHATTI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
3. SAVITHA H.T.,
D/O LATE THIPPESWAMY
@ THIPPANNA RANGAPPA EMMEHATTI
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
ALL ARE R/O THAMATAKKALU VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH CHITRADURGA TALUK
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND DISTRICT - 577 501.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NWKRTC, OWNER OF BUS
BEARING NO. KA-25/F-2836
HUBBLI DIVISION,
HUBBLI - 580 020.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31574
MFA No. 978 of 2023
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR
NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,
GUKUL ROAD, HUBBLI - 580 020.
3. THE CHAIRMAN INTERNAL
SECURITY FUND, KSRTC,
SARIGE BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR
KH ROAD, BENGALURU - 01.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. VIJAYA KUMARA, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.11.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.870/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT NO.IV, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.R.Shashidhara, learned counsel for the
appellants as well as Sri.D.Vijayakumar, learned counsel who is
representing respondents No.1 to 3.
2. Dissatisfied with the amount that is awarded as
compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV,
Chitradurga, through orders in MVC No.870/2019 dated
12.11.2020, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.
NC: 2024:KHC:31574
3. The short point involved in this appeal as submitted
by Sri.R.Shashidhara, learned counsel for the appellants as well
as Sri.D.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to
3 is in respect of adding future prospects. It is not in dispute
that the deceased Thippeswamy was aged about 52 years by
the date of accident. Therefore, as rightly contended, 10% of
the actual earnings are required to be added towards future
prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Pranay Sethi's case. However, a perusal of records reveals that
the Tribunal did not add such future prospects.
4. One more point urged by learned counsel for the
appellants is that the Tribunal erred in taking the notional
income as Rs.10,000/- per month. As per the version of the
appellants, the deceased Thippeswamy was working as Porter
at a cement godown. However, no substantive proof is
produced in proof of the said fact. Yet having regard to the fact
that the accident occurred in the year 2019 and even the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional
income for the relevant period as Rs.14,000/- per month, this
Court considers desirable to take the said figure into
consideration for assessing the compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:31574
5. It is not in dispute that the claimants are the wife
and two children of the deceased. Therefore, 1/3rd of the actual
earnings are required to be deducted towards personal and
living expenses which the deceased Thippeswamy would have
incurred for himself had he been alive. That apart, as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarala Verma's case,
appropriate multiplier to be applied is '11'. Therefore, applying
the aforementioned parameters, the amount that can be
awarded under the head loss of dependency if calculated would
be as under:
Description Amount
Rs.
Notional income per month 14,000-00
Annual income (14,000x12) 1,68,000-00
Add 10% towards future
1,84,800-00
prospects(1,68,000+10%)
Deduct 1/3rd toward
personal and living 1,23,200-00
expenses
Applying appropriate
13,55,200-00
multiplier '11',
Loss of dependency 13,55,200-00
6. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,80,000
under the head loss of dependency. However, the just
NC: 2024:KHC:31574
compensation that the appellants are entitled to under the said
head in the light of the aforementioned discussion is
Rs.13,55,200/-. Thus, the enhancement would be
Rs.4,75,200/- (13,55,200 - 8,80,000). The compensation
granted by the Tribunal on all other heads is reasonable.
7. Thus, for the foregoing discussion, the following
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The amount awarded as compensation by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV, Chitradurga, through the orders in
MVC No.870/2019 dated 12.11.2020 is enhanced by
Rs.4,75,200/-
iii) The first appellant who is the wife of the deceased
is entitled to withdraw the entire enhanced amount.
iv) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit.
NC: 2024:KHC:31574
v) The respondents are directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
vi) As per the orders of this Court in IA No.1/2023
dated 10.02.2023, the appellants are not entitled for any
interest over the enhanced amount for the period of delay i.e.,
243 days.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM
