Karnataka High Court
Hanamant vs V.Chinnannan And Ors on 1 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
MFA No. 202265 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 202266 of 2017
MFA No. 202267 of 2017
MFA No. 202268 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.202265 OF 2017(MV-D)
C/W
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.202266 OF 2017(MV-D)
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.202267 OF 2017(MV-I)
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.202268 OF 2017(MV-D)
IN MFA.NO.202265/2017 :-
BETWEEN:
1. MALAKARI @ MALAKAPPA
S/O HANAMANTH BAGALI,
Digitally signed
by KHAJAAMEEN AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: NIL
L MALAGHAN
Location: High
Court of 2. BHARATI @ BHAGIRATHI
Karnataka W/O MALAKARI @ MALAKAPPA
S/O HANAMANTH BAGALI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
BOTH ARE R/O NAGATHAN,
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586208.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BIRADAR VIRANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
MFA No. 202265 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 202266 of 2017
MFA No. 202267 of 2017
MFA No. 202268 of 2017
AND:
1. V. CHINNANNAN
S/O VELAPPA GOUNDER,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUINESS,
R/O.213/42/34, ODATHURAI BHAVANI,
ERODE, TAMIL NADU-668001.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585103.
POLICY NO.1-2ZFDSVJ
VALID FROM 2.9.2014 TO 1.9.2015)
INSURER OF LORRY NO.TN-52/Z-2983)
3. REVAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA BABALADI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINES,
R/O. ANJUTAGI, TQ: INDI
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586209.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER
HDFCERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SHANKAR NARAYAN BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR
M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
POLICY NO.2317200769667600000
VALID FROM 4.06.2014 TO 3.6.2015)
INSURER OF TEMPO NO.KA-28/4305)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R4;
SRI. SUDARSHAN M. ADV. FOR R2;
R1 AND R3 ARE-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V.
ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT TRIBUNAL NO.IV VIJAYAPUR
DATED 30.10.2017, IN MVC NO.232/2016 AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
MFA No. 202265 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 202266 of 2017
MFA No. 202267 of 2017
MFA No. 202268 of 2017
IN MFA.NO.202266/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. YALLAWWA W/O BEERAPPA ARJANAL,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK,
2. MALAPPA S/O BEERAPPA ARJANAL
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. CHANNAPPA S/O BEERAPPA ARJANAL
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. HANAMANT S/O BEERAPPA ARJANAL
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: NIL
5. MAHADEV @ MADHU S/O BEERAPPA ARJANAL,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC:NIL
BOTH ARE R/O. NAGATHAN,
TQ. AND DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586208.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BIRADAR VIRANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. V. CHINNANNAN
S/O VELAPPA GOUNDER,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUINESS,
R/O.213/42/34, ODATHURAI BHAVANI,
ERODE, TAMIL NADU-668001.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585103.
POLICY NO.1-2ZFDSVJ
VALID FROM 2.9.2014 TO 1.9.2015)
INSURER OF LORRY NO.TN-52/Z-2983)
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
MFA No. 202265 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 202266 of 2017
MFA No. 202267 of 2017
MFA No. 202268 of 2017
3. REVAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA BABALADI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. ANJUTAGI, TQ: INDI
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586209.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER
HDFCERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SHANKAR NARAYAN BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR
M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
POLICY NO.2317200769667600000
VALID FROM 4.06.2014 TO 3.6.2015)
INSURER OF TEMPO NO.KA-28/4305)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R4;
SRI. SUDARSHAN M. ADV. FOR R2;
R3-SERVED;
V/O DATED 13.11.2022 IN MFA.NO.202265/2017 NOTICE TO
R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V.
ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT TRIBUNAL NO.IV VIJAYAPUR,
DATED 30.10.2017, IN MVC.NO.233/2016 AND ETC.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
MFA No. 202265 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 202266 of 2017
MFA No. 202267 of 2017
MFA No. 202268 of 2017
IN MFA.NO.202267/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. HANAMANT S/O BEERAPPA ARJANAL,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NAGATHAN,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586 108.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BIRADAR VIRANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. V. CHINNANNAN
S/O VELAPPA GOUNDER,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUINESS,
R/O.213/42/34, ODATHURAI BHAVANI,
ERODE, TAMIL NADU-668001.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585103.
POLICY NO.1-2ZFDSVJ
VALID FROM 2.9.2014 TO 1.9.2015)
INSURER OF LORRY NO.TN-52/Z-2983)
3. REVAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA BABALADI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. ANJUTAGI, TQ: INDI
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586209.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
MFA No. 202265 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 202266 of 2017
MFA No. 202267 of 2017
MFA No. 202268 of 2017
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER
HDFCERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SHANKAR NARAYAN BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR
M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
POLICY NO.2317200769667600000
VALID FROM 4.06.2014 TO 3.6.2015)
INSURER OF TEMPO NO.KA-28/4305)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M. ADV. FOR R2;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R4;
R3-SERVED;
V/O DATED 18.11.2022 IN MFA.NO.202265/2017 NOTICE TO
R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V.
ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT TRIBUNAL NO.IV VIJAYAPUR,
DATED 30.10.2017, IN MVC.NO.234/2016 AND ETC.
IN MFA.NO.202268/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. YALLAWWA W/O BEERAPPA ARJANAL,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK,
2. MALAPPA S/O BEERAPPA ARJANAL
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. CHANNAPPA S/O BEERAPPA ARJANAL
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
MFA No. 202265 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 202266 of 2017
MFA No. 202267 of 2017
MFA No. 202268 of 2017
4. HANAMANT S/O BEERAPPA ARJANAL
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: NIL
5. MAHADEV @ MADHU S/O BEERAPPA ARJANAL,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC:NIL
BOTH ARE R/O. NAGATHAN,
TQ. AND DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586208.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BIRADAR VIRANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. V. CHINNANNAN
S/O VELAPPA GOUNDER,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O.213/42/34, ODATHURAI BHAVANI,
ERODE, TAMIL NADU-668001.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ASIAN AREA, OPP: SYNDICATE BANK,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585103.
POLICY NO.1-2ZFDSVJ
VALID FROM 2.9.2014 TO 1.9.2015)
INSURER OF LORRY NO.TN-52/Z-2983)
3. REVAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA BABALADI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. ANJUTAGI, TQ: INDI
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586209.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
MFA No. 202265 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 202266 of 2017
MFA No. 202267 of 2017
MFA No. 202268 of 2017
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER
HDFCERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SHANKAR NARAYAN BUILDING,
1ST FLOOR M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
POLICY NO.2317200769667600000
VALID FROM 4.06.2014 TO 3.6.2015)
INSURER OF TEMPO NO.KA-28/4305)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M. ADV. FOR R2;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R4;
R3-SERVED;
V/O DATED 18.11.2022 IN MFA.NO.202265/2017 NOTICE TO
R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V.
ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT TRIBUNAL NO.IV VIJAYAPUR,
DATED 30.10.2017, IN MVC NO.235/2016 AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
MFA No. 202265 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 202266 of 2017
MFA No. 202267 of 2017
MFA No. 202268 of 2017
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the claimants aggrieved
by the judgment and award passed in
M.V.C.Nos.232/2016, 233/2016, 234/2016 and 235/2016
dated : 30.10.2017, on the file of the Member, MACT-IV
and III Additional District Judge, Vijayapura (for short
'Tribunal'), seeking enhancement of compensation. The
Tribunal had disposed of these cases by way of a common
order. Hence, this Court is also disposing of these appeals
by way of a common order.
2. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal
was that on 16.03.2015 all of them were traveling in a
Tempo and when they are on the Zalaki-Horti road, near
Ballolli Bridge, the driver of the Lorry drove the same in a
rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and
dashed against the Tempo and in the said accident 2-3
people died and one got injured. When it comes to the
liability the Tribunal had observed that the Tempo in which
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
the claimants were traveling is a goods carriage vehicle.
As per Ex.R.1 - insurance policy is a Act Policy. Only the
driver alone can travel in the said vehicle, but all these
people were traveling in the said vehicle as unauthorized
passengers. That apart the driver of the Lorry was not
having a driving license. Further the Tribunal had observed
that there is contributory negligence on the part of both
the vehicles and the same was apportioned at 20% on the
driver of the Lorry and 80% on the driver of the Tempo. It
is held that as the Tempo is a goods vehicle and the policy
is an Act Policy, the insurance company is not liable to pay
the compensation and the owner alone is liable to pay the
compensation.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer of the
tempo submits that the insurance policy is an act policy
and the insurance company is not liable to pay the
compensation in respect of the inmates. It is further
submitted that as the tempo is a goods vehicle except the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
driver no other persons are permitted to travel in the said
vehicle. The court below had rightly fastened the liability
on the owner of the vehicle.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer of the
lorry submits that the court below had granted the
compensation on the higher side without there being any
proper evidence and hence the same has to be reduced.
ISSUE OF LIABILITY :
5. Learned counsel for the claimants submit that
the liability was fixed on the owner of the tempo. He
submits that even if there is any violation of the terms and
condition of the insurance policy, still the insurance
company is liable to pay the compensation and thereafter
recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The court
below atleast ought to have ordered pay and recover.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either
side, perused the entire material on record. The finding of
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
the Tribunal with regard to the involvement of the vehicle
and the negligence fastened on both the vehicle is not in
dispute. The only dispute raised in this appeal is about the
quantum as well as the liability fixed on the owner of the
tempo. This court has perused the entire records, as per
the same, the policy is an act policy and the vehicle is a
goods vehicle. Four people were traveling in the goods
vehicle as gratuitous passengers. In respect of gratuitous
passengers - insurance company is not liable to pay the
compensation and the principle of pay and recover cannot
be applied. Hence, this court finds no force in the
arguments of the claimants.
i) MFA.No.202265/2017 arising out of MVC.No.232/2106:
7. It is the case of the claimant that the deceased
was a student and was also doing private work and
earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m., the court below
had taken the income at Rs.7,000/- p.m., and granted the
compensation as per the table given below:
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Loss of Dependency : Rs. 7,56,000/-
2. Loss of Estate : Rs. 50,000/-
3. Love and Affection : Rs. 1,00,000/-
4. Medical Expenses : Rs. 7,07,450/-
5. Transportation of Dead : Rs. 25,000/-
Body and Funeral Expenses
TOTAL : Rs. 16,38,450/-
8. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants
submits that this accident had taken place during the year
2015 and according to the claimants the deceased was
earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m. The court below
without any basis had taken the income at Rs.7,000/-
p.m., which is on the lower side.
9. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased
was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m., there is no
evidence in that regard. This Court considering the
notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority for the year 2015 is taking the
income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m., as the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
deceased was aged 20 years future prospects of 40% has
to be added i.e., Rs.3,000/- and as the deceased was a
bachelor 50% has to be deducted towards 'personal
expenses', then the contribution of the deceased to the
family would be Rs.5600/-. Therefore, the claimants are
entitled for an amount of Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.5,600 x 12
x 18) under the head of loss of dependency. Towards
consortium since there are two dependants the claimants
are entitled for an amount of Rs.96,000/- (48,000 x 2),
towards funeral expenses an amount of Rs.36,000/- is
awarded, under the medical expenses the court below
had granted Rs.7,07,450/- based on the bills and
receipts and hence no interference is called for.
10. Further in the light of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M.
MALATHI AND ANOTHER1, the claimant is entitled for an
amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses.
(2014) 11 SCC 178
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
11. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the
compensation under the following heads:
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Loss of Dependency : Rs. 12,09,600/-
2. Loss of Consortium : Rs. 96,000/-
3. Medical Expenses : Rs. 7,07,450/-
4. Transportation of Dead : Rs. 36,000/-
Body and Funeral Expenses
5. Legal Expenses : Rs. 10,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 20,59,050/-
12. Accordingly, the Appeal is Partly Allowed,
enhancing the compensation amount from an amount of
Rs.16,38,450/- to an amount of Rs.20,59,050/-.
i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
ii) The apportionment of the compensation would
be that the insurer of the lorry i.e., respondent No.2 is
liable to pay 20% of the aforesaid compensation i.e.,
Rs.4,11,810/- and the owner of the tempo i.e., respondent
No.3 is liable to pay 80% of the compensation i.e.,
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
Rs.16,47,240/-. They shall deposit the compensation
amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the
claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount
without furnishing any security.
ii) MFA NO.202266/2017 ARISING OUT OF MVC NO.233/2016:
13. In this case according to the claimants the
deceased was working as an agricultural coolie and
earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m., the court
considered the income at Rs.7,000/- and granted the
compensation as per the following table:
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Loss of Dependency : Rs. 7,56,000/-
2. Loss of Estate : Rs. 50,000/-
3. Love and Affection : Rs. 1,00,000/-
4. Transportation of Dead : Rs. 25,000/-
Body and Funeral Expenses
TOTAL : Rs. 9,31,000/-
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
14. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants
submits that this accident had taken place during the year
2015 and according to the claimants the deceased was
earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m. The court below
without any basis had taken the income at Rs.7,000/-
p.m., which is on the lower side.
15. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased
was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m., there is no
evidence in that regard. This Court considering the chart
prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority
on notional income, for the 2015 taking the income of the
deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m., deceased was aged 20 years
future prospects of 40% has to be added i.e., Rs.3,000/-.
The deceased was a bachelor 50% has to be deducted
towards 'personal expenses', then the contribution of the
deceased to the family would come to Rs.5,600/-.
Therefore, the claimants are entitled for an amount of
Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.5,600 x 12 x 18) under the head of
loss of dependency. Towards consortium since there
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
are two dependants the claimants are entitled for an
amount of Rs.96,000/- (48,000 x 2), towards funeral
expenses an amount of Rs.36,000/- is awarded.
16. Further in the light of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M.
MALATHI AND ANOTHER2, the claimant is entitled for an
amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses.
17. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the
compensation under the following heads:
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Loss of Dependency : Rs. 12,09,600/-
2. Loss of Consortium : Rs. 96,000/-
Transportation of Dead : Rs. 36,000/-
3.
Body and Funeral Expenses
4. Legal Expenses : Rs. 10,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 13,51,600/-
(2014) 11 SCC 178
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
18. Accordingly, the Appeal is Partly Allowed,
enhancing the compensation amount from an amount of
Rs.9,31,000/- to an amount of Rs.13,51,600/-.
i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
ii) The apportionment of the compensation would
be that the insurer of the lorry i.e., respondent No.2 is
liable to pay 20% of the aforesaid compensation i.e.,
Rs.2,70,320/- and the owner of the tempo i.e., respondent
No.3 is liable to pay 80% of the compensation i.e.,
Rs.10,81,280/-. They shall deposit the compensation
amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the
claimant are entitled to withdraw the entire amount
without furnishing any security.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
iii) MFA NO.202268/2017 ARISING OUT OF MVC No.235/2016:
19. In this case according to the claimants the
deceased was 55 years old and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m.,
The court below had taken Rs.7,000/- as income and by
deducting 1/3rd had granted compensation as per the table
given below:
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Loss of Dependency : Rs. 6,16,000/-
2. Loss of Estate : Rs. 50,000/-
3. Love and Affection : Rs. 1,00,000/-
4. Transportation of Dead : Rs. 25,000/-
Body and funeral
TOTAL : Rs. 7,91,000/-
20. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants
submits that the court below had taken very less income,
when the case of the claimants is that he was earning
Rs.10,000/- p.m., and instead of deducting 1/4th when
there are five claimants the court below had deducted
1/3rd. It is submitted that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is not just and reasonable.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
21. Learned counsel appearing for both insurance
companies submits that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on higher side and no grounds made out for
enhancement of the compensation.
22. Having heard the learned counsel on either
side, perused the entire material on record. In this case
the case of the claimants is that he was earning
Rs.10,000/-. No material is produced in this regard.
Considering the accident is of the year 2015 and as per
the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority, this Court is taking the income of the deceased
at Rs.8,000/- p.m., the deceased is 55 years old therefore
10% of the income is added towards future prospects i.e.,
Rs.800/- the income would be Rs.8,800/-, out of which
1/4th to be deducted towards personal expenses i.e.,
Rs.2,800/-, if the same is deducted Rs.6,600/- would be
the contribution of the deceased to the family. Therefore,
the claimants are entitled for an amount of
Rs.8,71,200/- (Rs.6600 x 12 x 11) . Towards
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
consortium since there are five dependants the claimants
are entitled for an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- (48,000 x
5), towards funeral expenses an amount of
Rs.36,000/- is awarded.
23. Further in the light of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M.
MALATHI AND ANOTHER3, the claimant is entitled for an
amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses.
24. The claimants are therefore, entitled to the
compensation under the following heads:
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Loss of Dependency : Rs. 8,71,200/-
2. Loss of Consortium : Rs. 2,40,000/-
Transportation of Dead : Rs. 36,000/-
3.
Body and Funeral Expenses
4. Legal Expenses : Rs. 10,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 11,52,200/-
(2014) 11 SCC 178
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
25. Accordingly, the Appeal is Partly Allowed,
enhancing the compensation amount from an amount of
Rs.7,91,000/- to an amount of Rs.11,57,200/-.
i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
ii) The apportionment of the compensation would
be that the insurer of the lorry i.e., respondent No.2 is
liable to pay 20% of the aforesaid compensation i.e.,
Rs.2,31,440/- and the owner of the tempo i.e., respondent
No.3 is liable to pay 80% of the compensation i.e.,
Rs.9,25,760/-. They shall deposit the compensation
amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the
claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount
without furnishing any security.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
iv) MFA 202267/2017 ARISING OUT OF MVC 234/2016:
26. In this case according to the claimant he has
sustained closed (L) femur nailing and below knee
amputation (L) lower limb at the cite of fracture. As per
the discharge certificate the claimant had taken treatment
as an inpatient in the Hospital from 21.03.2015 to
13.04.2015. As per the evidence of the Doctor, the
claimant had sustained 75% disability to the left lower
limb and 10 to 15% disability to the left upper limb.
According to the claimant he is earning Rs.10,000/- p.m.,
the court below had taken income at Rs.7,000/- and
granted compensation as per the following table :
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Loss of Earning Capacity : Rs. 9,82,800/-
2. Spl. Diet Conveyance and : Rs. 26,000/-
Attendant Charges
3. Future Medical Expenses : Rs. 1,75,000/-
4. Loss of Amenities : Rs. 1,00,000/-
5. Pain and Sufferings : Rs. 50,000/-
6. Medical Expenses : Rs. 2,34,272/-
TOTAL : Rs. 15,68,072/-
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
27. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant
submits that under the head of pain and suffering and
future loss of income reasonable amount is not granted
and also for loss of income during laid up period no
amount is granted and the compensation awarded by the
court below is not reasonable.
28. Learned counsel appearing for both insurance
companies submit that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on higher side and no grounds made out for
enhancement of the compensation.
29. Having heard the learned counsel on either
side, perused the entire material on record. Considering
the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant under the
head of pain and suffering an amount of Rs.70,000/- is
granted. Towards loss of future earning according to the
claimant he was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/-. No
evidence is produced in this regard. Considering the
accident is of the year 2015 and as per the chart prepared
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, this
Court is taking the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-
p.m. The claimant is 25 years old and taking the disability
at 65%, the claimant is entitled for an amount of
Rs.11,23,200/- (Rs.8000 x 12 x18 x 65%) towards loss
of future earning. Under the head of loss of income
during laid up period no amounts are granted, hence an
amount of Rs.32,000/- (Rs.8,000 x 4) is granted.
Towards all other heads the court below had granted
reasonable amounts and no interference is required.
30. Further in the light of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M.
MALATHI AND ANOTHER4, the claimant is entitled for an
amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses.
31. The claimants are therefore, entitled to the
compensation under the following heads:
(2014) 11 SCC 178
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
Heads Compensation
Awarded
1. Loss of Earning Capacity : Rs. 11,23,200/-
2. Spl. Diet Conveyance and : Rs. 26,000/-
Attendant Charges
3. Future Medical Expenses : Rs. 1,75,000/-
4. Loss of Amenities : Rs. 1,00,000/-
5. Pain and Sufferings : Rs. 70,000/-
6. Medical Expenses : Rs. 2,34,272/-
7. Loss of income during laid : Rs. 32,000/-
up period
8. Legal Expenses : Rs. 10,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 17,70,472/-
32. Accordingly, the Appeal is Partly Allowed,
enhancing the compensation amount from an amount of
Rs.15,68,072/- to an amount of Rs.17,70,472/-.
i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
ii) The apportionment of the compensation would
be that the insurer of the lorry i.e., respondent No.2 is
liable to pay 20% of the aforesaid compensation i.e.,
Rs.3,54,094/- and the owner of the tempo i.e., respondent
No.3 is liable to pay 80% of the compensation i.e.,
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1211
Rs.14,16,377/-. They shall deposit the compensation
amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the
claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount
without furnishing any security.
Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records
to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order
passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.
No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KJJ/JJ
CT: VD
