Karnataka High Court
Obappa S/O Bharamappa vs M. Selvam S/O Mariyappanan on 8 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2846
MFA No. 101878 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101878 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. OBAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
2. SMT.CHOWDAMMA W/O. OBAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
BOTH ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND
R/O: SHIVAPURA VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SOUBAGYA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
SAMREEN
AYUB
DESHNUR
AND:
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN
AYUB DESHNUR
Date: 2024.02.22
16:48:45 +0530 1. M. SELVAM S/O. MARIYAPPANAN,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
DRIVER OF THE LORRY BEARING
REG NO.TN-67/H-4051,
R/O: NO.2/43, NEW NO.3/256,
KOOTHANUR VILLAGE, NATTAMANGALAM POST,
KUNNAM TALUK, PERAMBALUR DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU STATE.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2846
MFA No. 101878 of 2016
2. S. SAHAYASUBINSYN,
S/O. SIVALINGAM,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING
REG NO.TN-67/H-4051,
R/O: NO.2/43, NEW NO.3/256,
R/O: 69, VADALIVILAJ, KOTTAM,
NAGERODIL, KANNYAKUMARI DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU.
3. THE MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE PARVATHI NAGAR,
BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 HELD SUFFICIENT;
R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.01.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.324/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE CUM MEMBER, VI-MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, KUDLIGI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2846
MFA No. 101878 of 2016
JUDGMENT
Heard Smt.Soubagya Vakkund for Sri.Y.Lakshmikanth
Reddy and Sri.R.R.Mane, counsels on merits.
2. Claimant is in appeal challenging the quantum of
compensation awarded in the claim petition in MVC
No.324/2014 dated 27.01.2016 pending on the file of VI-MACT
at Kudligi.
3. Claimants are parents of Gunasagar Halaswamy. He was
aged 16 years as on the date of accident.
3.1 Driver of the lorry bearing No.TN-67/H-4051 drove the
same in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the death of
Gunasagar Halaswamy.
3.2 Tribunal on contest allowed the claim petition and
awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- following the dictum of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and another
vs. Lala and others, reported in (2014)1 SCC 244.
4. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
claimants are in appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2846
5. Smt.Soubhagya Vakkund, learned counsel for the
appellants vehemently contended that in the case of Kishan
Gopal (supra), deceased was aged 10 years and in the case
on deceased was aged 16 years and therefore, reasonable
enhancement may kindly be made insofar as compensation is
concerned.
6. Per contra, Sri.R.R.Mane, counsel supported the
impugned judgment stating that in the absence of any proper
proof of income, tribunal was justified in awarding
compensation by following the dictum of Kishan Gopal
(supra), and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard the parties, this court has perused the
material on record meticulously.
8. On such perusal of the material on record, tribunal has
rightly applied the principal of law enunciated in the case of
Kishan Gopal (supra), to the facts of the case taking note of
the fact that the deceased is a minor aged 16 years.
9. No doubt, the deceased in Kishan Gopal (supra), was
aged 10 years and deceased in the case on hand is 16 years.
There is no material evidence placed on record to show that
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2846
deceased was contributing to the income of the family. There
may be a case where deceased would have contributed to
income of the family either by assisting the parents in
agricultural work or other related activities. In such case court
may deviate from applying principles of Kishan Gopal (supra)
and assess the quantum of compensation.
10. In the absence of any such material evidence placed on
record, when claimant itself stated that he is a student, there
cannot be any scope for enhancement in the compensation.
11. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i) Admission declined.
ii) Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HMB
