Karnataka High Court
Smt Narasamma vs Megharaj on 2 January, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:129
MFA No. 970 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.970 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NARASAMMA
W/O M.K. PRAKASH NAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
2. ISHWARYA
D/O M K PRAKASH NAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS,
3. HARSHA
S/O M.K. PRAKASH NAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,
APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,
REP, BYTHEIR
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER i.,e
APPELLANT NO1.
Digitally signed
by RAMYA D 4. KENCHANAYAKA
Location: HIGH S/O RANGANAYAKA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
KARNATAKA
5. SMT GOWRAMMA
W/O KENCHANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O MASTIHALLI,
CHALUVANAHALLI POST,
BANAVARA HOBLI,
ARSIKERE TALUK - 573 103
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:129
MFA No. 970 of 2019
AND:
1. MEGHARAJ
S/O BASAVA HONNAPPA MUDAL,
2ND MAIN 67, HCRS,
BELLIMANE COLONY,
DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560057.
2. THE MANAGER
KOTAK MAHINDRA GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
8TH FLOOR, ZONE - 4,
KOTAK INFIENTI BUILDING NO 21,
I.T. PARK,
VIDHYA MARG
MUMBAI - 400 097
REPRESENTED BY
THE MANAGER
KOTAK MAHINDRA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO 43, SENDRD
TATA SILK FARM,
JAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 004
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1- NOTICE D/W V/O DT: 01/09/2021)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1665/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
AMACT, ARSIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:129
MFA No. 970 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the
judgment and award dated 07.12.2018 passed by Senior
Civil Judge and MACT, Arsikere, in MVC No.1665/2017,
seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
2. The factum of accident, death of deceased and
coverage of insurance are not in dispute.
3. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused
the records.
4. In the present case, the Tribunal has awarded
compensation as under:
1 Loss of dependency Rs.12,24,000/-
2 Loss of consortium to Petitioner Rs.40,000/-
No.1
3 Towards transport and funeral Rs.30,000/-
expenses
4 Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
5 Towards love and affection to 4th Rs.15,000/-
petitioner
Total Rs.13,24,000/-
NC: 2024:KHC:129
5. The Tribunal while determining the
compensation has not adopted the correct parameters.
Hence, claimants are entitled for compensation.
6. The alleged accident has occurred on
06.06.2017 and one Sri.Prakash Nayaka sustained injuries
in the said accident and died at J.C.Hospital, Arsikere. The
claimants are the wife, two minor children and parents.
7. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of
deceased at Rs.8,500/- per month, but as per KSLSA the
notional income for the accidents of the year 2017 was
ought to be taken at Rs.11,000/- per month. Hence, the
notional income of the deceased is taken at Rs.11,000/-
per month.
8. The Tribunal has not added income towards
'loss of future prospects in life'. Deceased was 35 years.
Therefore, 40% is to be added towards 'loss of future
prospects' and the appropriate multiplier is '16'. Further
NC: 2024:KHC:129
1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses.
Hence, loss of dependency is reassessed as under:
Rs.11,000/- + 40% (Rs.4,400/-) = Rs.15,400/-
Rs.15,400/- x ¾ x 16 x 12 = Rs.22,17,600/-
Thus, claimants are entitled for a compensation of
Rs.22,17,600/- towards 'loss of dependency'.
9. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of love and affection' to
petitioner No.4 and Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of
consortium' to petitioner No.1. The 'loss of love and
affection' and 'loss of consortium' are having the same
connotation. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.
Limited v. Nanu Ram & Others1, each claimants are
entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of consortium'. In
the present case, there are five dependants. Therefore,
compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- [Rs.40,000/- x 5
2018 ACJ 2782
NC: 2024:KHC:129
dependants + 10% escalation) is awarded under the head
'loss of consortium' including 'loss of love and affection'.
10. The compensation of Rs.33,000/- is awarded
towards 'funeral expenses and transportation of dead
body'.
11. The compensation of Rs.16,500/- is awarded
towards 'loss of estate'. Therefore, only towards these
conventional heads compensation is enhanced.
12. Thus, in all, the appellants/claimants are
entitled for total compensation under various heads as
follows:
1 Loss of dependency Rs. 12,24,000/- 22,17,600/-
2 Loss of consortium
including loss of love
and affection Rs. 40,000/- 2,20,000/-
3 Funeral expenses and
transportation of
dead body Rs. 30,000/- 33,000/-
4 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 16,500/-
5 Love and affection Rs. 15,000/- -
TOTAL Rs. 13,24,000/- 24,87,100/-
NC: 2024:KHC:129
13. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.13,24,000/-, but the appellants/claimants are entitled
to total compensation of Rs.24,87,100/-. Hence, the
appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.11,63,100/- (Rs.24,87,100/- -
Rs.13,24,000/-). Therefore, the appellants/claimants are
entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.11,63,100/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to
what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii. The impugned judgment and award
dated 07.12.2018 in MVC No.1665/2017
passed by the Senior Civil Judge &
MACT, Arsikere, is modified to the
extent that the appellants/claimants are
entitled to enhanced compensation of
NC: 2024:KHC:129
Rs.11,63,100/- along with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of realization, in
addition to what has been awarded by
the Tribunal.
iii. No order as to costs.
iv. Draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DR
