Karnataka High Court

Padmavathi vs Saritha on 14 February, 2024

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                          -1-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC:6499
                                                   MFA No. 7066 of 2021




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                     DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                       BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7066 OF 2021 (MV-D)

              BETWEEN:

              1.    PADMAVATHI
                    W/O.PUTTARAJU
                    AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

              2.    THILAK P.
                    S/O.PUTTARAJU
                    AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
                    MINOR

                    APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR
                    REPRESENTED BY HIS
                    NATURAL GUARDIAN AND
                    MOTHER-APPELLANT NO.1

                    BOTH ARE R/ AT NO.1232
                    6TH CROSS, 'C' BLOCK
                    MAHADEVAPURA
                    MYSURU SOUTH
Digitally           NO.339, MUSLIM STREET
signed by B         MYSURU-570 019
LAVANYA
                                                          ...APPELLANTS
Location:     (BY SRI SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE)
HIGH
COURT OF      AND:
KARNATAKA
              1.    SARITHA
                    W/O.MANIKANTHA
                    AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
                    R/AT NO.32, RAMABAINAGARA
                    SHANKARALINGEGOWDA EXTENSION
                    MYSURU-570 001
                               -2-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:6499
                                        MFA No. 7066 of 2021




2.   UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
     BY ITS MANAGER
     MOTOR TB HUB, NO.1134
     PRINCE OF VALES ROAD
     BALLAL CIRCLE
     CHAMARAJAPURAM
     MYSURU-570 005
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
    NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC
NO.331/2020 BY VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND
MEMBER, MACT, MYSURU.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                           JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging

the judgment and award dated 28.09.2021 passed in

MVC.No.331/2020 by the Court of VII Additional District

Judge and Member, MACT, Mysuru (for short 'the

tribunal'). This appeal is founded on the premise of

inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellants seek

enhancement of compensation.

2. Though this matter is listed for admission, with

consent of learned counsel for both parties, it is taken up

for final disposal.

NC: 2024:KHC:6499

3. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

their status before the tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 25.01.2020, at about 7.35 a.m., one P.Shankar

was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-

09/HU-3305 near outer Ring Road, Mysuru, near

Sericulture Farm, at that time, a Tractor belonging to

respondent No.1 came in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed against the motor cycle of the said P.Shankar.

Due to the impact of accident, the said P.Shankar died on

the way to the Hospital.

4.1 It is stated that due to sudden and unfortunate

death of deceased Shankar, who was the sole bread

winner of the family, the claimants namely, mother and

minor brother, who were solely depended on his earning

have been affected financially so also mentally. Hence,

they filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

4.2 On service of notice, respondent No.1 appeared

through counsel and did not file written statement.

NC: 2024:KHC:6499

Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the

averments made in the claim petition including age,

avocation, income and negligence attributed against the

driver of the tractor and sought for dismissal of the claim

petition on various grounds urged therein.

4.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed

the relevant issues for consideration.

4.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to

establish the case, claimant No.1 got examined herself as

PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P12. On the

other hand, the respondents have not led any evidence

and got marked a document as Ex.R1.

4.5 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and

documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned

counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.24,89,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a.

and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the said amount

within 30 days from the date of the order.

NC: 2024:KHC:6499

4.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation

awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this

Court challenging the impugned judgment and award.

5. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants submits

that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding

meager compensation, which calls for interference at the

hands of this Court. On these grounds, he seeks to

enhance the compensation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-

Insurance Company sustains the judgment and award of

the tribunal and contends that the tribunal has rightly

awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does

not call for interference. On these grounds, he seeks to

dismiss the appeal.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellants-claimants and learned counsel for respondent-

Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment

and award, Exs.P1 to P12 are the documents marked in

favour of the claimants. Out of which, Exs.P1 to P6 are the

NC: 2024:KHC:6499

Police records, which evidence the fact of filing FIR and

laying of chargesheet against the driver of the Tractor, the

offending vehicle, which is not challenged or disputed by

the driver of the offending vehicle. Exs.P9 to P12 are the

documents to show the relationship of the claimants and

that of the deceased Shankar.

8. Now coming to the age, avocation and income of

the deceased as on the date of occurrence of accident, the

tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at

Rs.12,000/- per month, as no proof of income was

produced. However, the Legal Service Authority chart

prescribes the notional income of Rs.14,500/- per month

for the accident of the year 2020 and the same is taken in

the present case. In view of the age of the deceased was

less than 40 years as on the date of occurrence of

accident, 40% will have to be added towards future

prospects, which has been rightly taken by the tribunal.

The tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal and

living expenses, which does not call for interference and

NC: 2024:KHC:6499

the same is retained. The multiplier applied by the tribunal

at '18' is correct, which also does not call for interference

and the same is retained. Therefore, the claimants would

be entitled to the compensation of Rs.29,23,344/-

(Rs.14,500/- + 40% = Rs.20,300/- - 1/3rd = Rs.13,534/-

x 12 x 18) towards loss of dependency as against

Rs.24,19,200/- awarded by the tribunal.

9. The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of

consortium only to claimant No.1, mother. However, the

tribunal refused to grant compensation towards loss of

consortium to the brother, which in my opinion is not a

correct proposition of law as it cannot be said that the

brother of the deceased has not lost love and affection and

the company of his brother. Hence, as per the decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National

Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and

others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases

680, claimant No.2 is also entitled for Rs.40,000/- along

with his mother. In all, the claimants would be entitled

NC: 2024:KHC:6499

to Rs.80,000/- and 10% escalation for one block period

on the same to be awarded under this head, which would

come to Rs.88,000/- (Rs.80,000/- + 10%).

10. The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards

funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.

In all, Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards conventional heads,

which does not call for interference and the same is

retained. However, as per the aforesaid decision, 10%

escalation for one block period on the same to be awarded

under this head, which would come to Rs.33,000/-

(Rs.30,000/- + 10%).

11. In view of the above, the claimants would be

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.30,44,344/- as

against Rs.24,89,200/- as mentioned in the table below:

             Heads                     Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency                        29,23,344-00
Loss of consortium                           88,000-00
Transportation of dead body,                 33,000-00
funeral and obsequies ceremony
expenses
             TOTAL                         30,44,344-00

                                               NC: 2024:KHC:6499

12. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

ii) The judgment and award dated 28.09.2021

passed in MVC.No.331/2020 by the Court of VII

Additional District Judge and Member, MACT,

Mysuru, is modified;

iii) The claimant would be entitled to a sum of

Rs.30,44,344/- as against Rs.24,89,200/-;

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid

by the respondent-Insurance Company with

interest at 6% per annum, within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment;