Karnataka High Court
Smt.Jyothi And Ors vs Mahadevappa And Anr on 11 January, 2024
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:487-DB
MFA No.200458 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200458 OF 2020 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.JYOTHI
W/O LATE SUDHARSHAN
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O. GOPANPALLI (B), TQ: SEDAM
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 101.
2. RAMCHARAN
S/O LATE SUDHARSHAN
AGE: 9 YEARS (MINOR)
3. RITHVIK
Digitally signed S/O LATE SUDHARSHAN
by SWETA AGE: 5 YEARS (MINOR)
KULKARNI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA APPELLANT NO. 2 AND 3 U/G OF
THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
SMT. JYOTHI I.E., APPELLANT NO.1.
4. PADMAMMA
W/O RAMULU
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O. GOPANPALLI (B), TQ: SEDAM
DIST: KALABURAGI -585 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:487-DB
MFA No.200458 of 2020
AND:
1. MAHADEVAPPA S/O NARSAPPA
AGE: 42 YEARS
OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE
NO. KA-33/1291
R/O. H.NO.5-5-290, VIVEKANAND NAGAR
STATION AREA YADGIR,
TQ: & DIST: YADGIR - 585 101.
2. THE MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, MEGA COMPLEX
CHITTAPUR ROAD, YADGIR
TQ: & DIST: YADGIR - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O. DATED 30.11.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
IN M.V.C. NO. 844/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND M.A.C.T AT SEDAM AND TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.12.2019
PASSED IN M.V.C NO. 844/2018 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND M.A.C.T AT SEDAM AND ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION FROM RS.12,97,000/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO
RS.35,00,000/- WITH 12%, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:487-DB
MFA No.200458 of 2020
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Babu H. Metagudda, the learned counsel for
the appellants and Sri S.S. Aspalli, the learned counsel for
respondent No.2. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed
with.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and
award dated 07.12.2019 rendered by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Sedam [for short, 'the Tribunal'] in MVC
No.844/2018.
3. This is a claimants' appeal. The Tribunal
awarded a sum of `12,97,000/- as compensation as against
the claim of `35,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum that is
awarded as compensation, the appellants are before this
Court.
4. Stating that except the quantum of amount that
is taken as income of the deceased and failure to apply the
future prospects, the appellants have other no grievance,
learned counsel contends that on these two grounds, the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:487-DB
compensation awarded may be revisited and just
compensation may be awarded.
5. A perusal of the impugned judgment and award
goes to show that the Tribunal, observing that though the
claimants produced RORs pertaining to the lands which
were in possession of the deceased Sudharshan yet failed to
produce satisfactory proof regarding the income of the
deceased, took the nominal income of the deceased at
`8,000/- per month. By producing Exs.P-8 to P-10 the
appellants established that the deceased was an
agriculturist. Also, as per the version of the appellants the
deceased was working as driver. Though no proof is
produced with regard to such occupation, as the appellants
succeeded in establishing that the deceased was an
agriculturist as on the date of accident, the Tribunal ought
to have taken the income of the deceased as `11,750/- per
month which figure in considered while settling the matters
before the Lok Adalath where the accident had occurred in
the year 2018.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:487-DB
6. In case `11,750/- is taken as the income of the
deceased, to which 40% of the income is added towards
future prospects, the same comes to `16,450/-. Thus, the
annual income of the deceased comes to `1,97,400/-. In
case 1/4th of the said income is deducted towards personal
and living expenses which the deceased would have incurred
for himself had he been alive, the contribution of the
deceased towards the appellants comes to `1,48,050/-.
When the appropriate multiplier '16' is applied, the loss of
dependency comes to `23,68,800/-. To the said amount the
conventional figure of `70,000/- is added. Thus, the just
compensation which the appellants are entitled to comes to
Rs.24,38,800/-. Thus, the enhancement would be
`11,41,800/-.
7. Therefore, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
07.12.2019 passed in MVC No.844/2018 by
MACT, Sedam is modified.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:487-DB
(iii) The award is enhanced by `11,41,800/-
which carries interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the
date of deposit.
(iv) The respondent - Insurer shall deposit the
said amount within eight weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
(v) On such deposit, the claimants are entitled
to receive the same as per the apportionment
made by the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SWK
Ct;Vk
