Karnataka High Court

Smt.Aruna vs Venkatesh on 26 February, 2024

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                          -1-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC:7872
                                                   MFA No. 3590 of 2021




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                     DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                      BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3590 OF 2021 (MV-D)
              BETWEEN:

              1.    SMT.ARUNA
                    W/O.LATE H.R.RAJESH
                    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
              2.    KUM.AMRITHA
                    D/O.LATE H.R.RAJESH
                    AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
              3.    KUM.ANKITHA
                    D/O.LATE H.R.RAJESH
                    AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

              4.    MASTER ADITYA
                    S/O.LATE H.R.RAJESH
                    AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS
                    APPELLANT NO.4 IS MINOR,
                    REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN
                    HIS MOTHER
                    APPELLANT NO.1
Digitally
signed by B   5.    RATHI
LAVANYA             D/O.RAMEGOWDA
Location:           AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
HIGH
COURT OF            ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KARNATAKA           MUTHIGEPURA VILLAGE
                    KASABA HOBLI
                    MUDIGERE TALUK-577132
                                                          ...APPELLANTS
              (BY SRI K.V.PRAKASHA, ADVOCATE)
              AND:

              1.    VENKATESH
                    S/O.RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA
                            -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:7872
                                    MFA No. 3590 of 2021




     AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
     VINAYAKANAGARA
     HONNURU
     CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 439
     DRIVER OF THE CAR BEARING
     NO.KA-10/M2295

2.   M.SUBBANNA
     S/O.MADAPPA
     PROP. OF CYCLE STORE
     HANOOR
     CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 439
     OWNER OF THE CAR BEARING NO.10/M2295

3.   THE MANAGER
     BAJAJ ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO.LTD.
     AVTI MOTOR PVT. LTD.
     PLOT NO.23, A/BC
     VELAVADI INDUSTRIAL AREA
     MYSURU -570 001
     POLICY NO.OG-13-1701-180100051911
     VALID FROM 10-01-2013 TO 09-01-2014

4.   M.H.ISMAIL
     S/O.HASANABBA
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
     R/AT GUMMANAKOLLI
     KUSHALANAGARA
     KODAGU DISTRICT-571 234
     DRIVER OF THE LORRY
     BEARING REGN NO.KA-12-A-1041
     DL.NO.KA-12/19920000827

5.   THE MANAGER
     AMRUTHA COFFEE
     CURING INDUSTRIES
     KUDLUR, KUSHALANAGARA
     SOMAVARAPET TALUK
     KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236
     OWNER OF THE LORRY
     BEARING REGN NO.
     KA-12-A-1041
                              -3-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:7872
                                      MFA No. 3590 of 2021




6.   THE BRANCH MANAGER
     THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
     COLLEGE ROAD
     MADIKERI-571 201
     POLICY NO.070603/31/12/300615213
     VALID FROM 11-10-2012 TO 10-10-2013
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
   SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-6;
   NOTICE TO R-1 & R-2 IS DISPENSED V/O/DTD.21.02.2024;
   R-4 & R-5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 06.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC.NO.411/2016 BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT MUDIGERE.

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

                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging

the judgment and award dated 06.06.2019 passed in

MVC.No.411/2016 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge

and MACT, Mudigere (for short 'the tribunal'). This appeal

is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation

awarded by the tribunal.

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

their status before the tribunal.

NC: 2024:KHC:7872

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 20.03.2013 at about 12.00 noon, the deceased

H.R.Rajesh was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing

registration No.KA-18/X-0719 from Muthigepura Cross to

Govibeedu driven by himself slowly, cautiously and by

observing all traffic rules. At that time, the driver of the

car bearing registration No.KA-10/M-2295 drove the same

in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

motor cycle of the deceased and at the same time,

respondent No.4, who was the driver of lorry bearing

registration No.KA-12/A-1041 came from behind also

dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased. Due to the

occurrence of accident, the rider of the motor cycle

sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

3.1 It is stated that the deceased was hale and

healthy prior to the occurrence of accident. He was

working as an agriculturist and doing business and earning

more than Rs.40,000/- per month. Due to the sudden and

untimely death of H.R.Rajesh, claimants being the legal

NC: 2024:KHC:7872

representatives and dependants of the deceased filed a

claim petition seeking compensation.

3.2 On service of notice, respondents have filed

written statement denying the claim of the claimants and

sought for dismissal of the claim petition on the ground of

there being no negligence against the offending two

vehicles as narrated in the claim petition and that the

deceased himself was responsible for occurrence of

accident. The Insurance Company has pleaded that the

driver of the vehicles did not possess a valid and effective

Driving Licence.

3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed

the relevant issues for consideration.

3.4 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 P9. On the

other hand, the respondents got examined two witnesses

as RWs.1 and 2 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 to

R16.

NC: 2024:KHC:7872

3.5 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.13,59,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a.

and held that respondent Nos.1 and 3 being the drivers,

respondent Nos.2 and 5 being the owners and respondent

Nos.3 and 6 being the Insurers are liable to pay

compensation equally i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 3 to an

extent of 50% and respondent Nos.4 to 6 to an extent of

50%.

3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation

awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this

Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. 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. Hence, he seeks to enhance the

compensation.

NC: 2024:KHC:7872

5. Per contra, learned counsels for respondent Nos.3

and 6-Insurance Companies sustain the judgment and

award of the tribunal and contend that the tribunal has

rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation, which

does not call for interference. Hence, they seek to dismiss

the appeal.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellants-claimants and learned counsels for respondent

Nos.3 and 6-Insurance Companies and perused the

impugned judgment and award, Exs.P1 to P9 are the

Police records, which depict the registering of FIR and

laying of charge sheet against the drivers of offending

vehicles i.e. the car and lorry for being negligent, which is

not challenged or disputed by the drivers of the offending

vehicles. The insurance towards the said vehicles are also

admitted. However, the Insurance Companies denied the

drivers of both the vehicles having possessed a valid and

effective Driving Licence as on the date of occurrence of

accident. Therefore, Exs.P1 to P9 clearly exhibit the

NC: 2024:KHC:7872

involvement of vehicle, occurrence of accident, death

having caused due to the accident and negligence of

drivers of both vehicles.

7. 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.6,000/- per month. However, the Legal Service

Authority chart prescribes the notional income of

Rs.8,000/- per month for the accident of the year 2013

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 and there being five dependants,

1/4th has to be deducted, which have been rightly taken by

the tribunal and the same do not call for interference and

are retained. The deceased was aged 35 years as on the

date of occurrence of accident and the multiplier applied

by the tribunal at '16' is correct, which also does not call

for interference and the same is retained. Therefore, the

NC: 2024:KHC:7872

claimants would be entitled to the compensation of

Rs.16,12,800/- (Rs.8,000/- + 40% = Rs.11,200/- - 1/4th

= Rs.8,400/- x 12 x 16) towards loss of dependency as

against Rs.12,09,600/- awarded by the tribunal.

8. The tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss of

consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and

affection. However, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company

Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in

(2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, which has been

subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

cases of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Nanu

Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur

Alias Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076

each dependents would be entitled to Rs.40,000/-.

Therefore, there being five dependents, the claimants

would be entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 5) and

20% escalation for two block periods on the same to be

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:7872

awarded under this head, which would come to

Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- + 20%).

9. The tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral

and obsequies ceremony and travelling expenses.

However, this Court deems it appropriate to award

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation

of dead body and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. In

all, Rs.30,000/- is awarded under these heads and 10%

escalation for one block period on the same to be

awarded, which would come to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/-

+ 10%).

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

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.18,85,800/- as

against Rs.13,59,600/- as mentioned in the table below:

             Heads                       Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency                          16,12,800-00
Loss of consortium                           2,40,000-00
Transportation of dead body,                   33,000-00
funeral and obsequies ceremony
expenses
             TOTAL                            18,85,800-00
                                      - 11 -
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:7872

11. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

ii) The judgment and award dated 06.06.2019 passed in MVC.No.411/2016 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mudigere, is modified;

iii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.18,85,800/- as against Rs.13,59,600/-;

iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest at 6% per annum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;