Karnataka High Court
Shivamma W/O Suresh Kurubar vs Managing Director on 4 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:170
MFA.CROB No. 100099 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100099 OF 2020 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SHIVAMMA
W/O. SURESH KURUBAR
AGED 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: ANANDNAGAR, MUNDGOD TOWN,
TQ: MUNDGOD,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581349.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR
NWKRTC, HEAD OFFICE
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD-580030.
2. BASAVARAJ
S/O. ERAPPA LAGAMANNAVAR
AGED 43 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC DRIVER,
BHARATHI
HM R/O: GUMMANGOL, TQ: NAVALAGUND,
Digitally signed by
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
BHARATHI H M ...RESPONDENTS
Date: 2024.01.23
16:30:55 +0530 (BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
R2 SERVED)
THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.21491/2012 IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 30.06.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO. 43/2010 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
YELLAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA.CROB, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:170
MFA.CROB No. 100099 of 2020
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for orders, with the
consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final
disposal.
2. The present cross objection was filed in MFA
No.21491/2012 which came to be withdrawn with a
permission of the Court by order dated 19.11.2020.
3. The cross objector is seeking enhancement of the
compensation.
4. The admitted facts which are available on record is
death of a minor who is a son of the claimant/cross
objector aged 17 years who was proceeding on a motor
cycle bearing No.KA-31/Q-2659 as a pillion rider. When
the motorcycle reached near Hudelkoppa on Sirsi-
Mundgod road, a KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-17/864 came
from Sirsi side in a rash and negligent manner with high
speed and dashed the motorcycle and the pillion rider fell
down and sustained grievous injuries and ultimately
NC: 2024:KHC-D:170
succumbed to the injuries in KIMS hospital Hubballi on
02.11.2009, despite best treatment.
5. A claim petition came to be filed by the parents
seeking appropriate compensation.
6. On contest, claim petition allowed in a sum of
Rs.2,40,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.
7. An appeal came to be filed by the KSRTC in MFA
No.21491/2012 which ultimately came to be withdrawn on
19.11.2020.
8. Cross objection however was filed belatedly seeking
condonation of delay of 2763 days.
9. Taking note of the authoritative pronouncements of
the Hon'ble Apex Court, cross objector is seeking
enhancement of compensation for the death of 17 years
old son of the claimants.
10. Sri.Vishwanath Hegde, vehemently contended that
this court even after considering the principle of law
enunciated in Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:170
others, reported in (2014)1 SCC 244, when the death of
a minor who is aged 17 years old, the court can very well
exercise its discretion in awarding the compensation more
than Rs.5,00,000/-, if there is a material available on
record to show that the minor deceased has an
independent income and the material available on record
would definitely depict that the deceased had an
independent income.
11. Per contra, Sri.S.C.Bhuti, learned counsel contended
that the material evidence on record would not
conclusively establish that the deceased who is minor
possessed an independent income and therefore taking
note of the relevant principles of law that was prevailing at
the time of passing award, the learned trial judge has
granted a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- which is just and
reasonable. Therefore, the cross objection is to be
dismissed.
12. Having heard the parties, this court has perused the
material on record meticulously.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:170
13. On such perusal of the material on record, learned
trial judge has bestowed his best attention on the
principles of law enunciated and governed while granting
compensation in a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- as on the date of
passing of the award.
14. However, since appeal filed by the KSRTC was
pending from 2012 to 2020, the lis continued to exist
between the parties. Therefore, the claimant should not be
denied benefit in the interregnum by subsequent
pronouncements of the courts of law which would favour
the claimant.
15. However, logic should not be so extended so as to
claim compensation more than Rs. 5,00,000/- beyond the
scope of the principles of law enunciated in the case of
Kishan Gopal supra by independently taking into
consideration the alleged income of the deceased minor.
16. Suffice to say that the material available on record
would make out a case for the claimant to seek
NC: 2024:KHC-D:170
enhancement of compensation from Rs.2,40,000/- to
Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.
17. Accordingly, the following;
ORDER
i) Cross objection is allowed in part.
ii) Cross objector is entitled for the sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. as against
Rs.2,40,000/- with interest at 6% awarded by
the tribunal, less interest for the delayed period
of 2768 days in filing cross objection.
iii) Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HMB
