Karnataka High Court
Smt. Saraswathi And Anr vs Sri Govindappa And Anr on 10 January, 2024
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:424-DB
MFA No. 202261 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH 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. 202261 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SARASWATHI W/O SHEKHAPPA DODDAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. SRI. SHEKHAPPA
S/O SHIVAYOGEPPA DODDAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE
BOTH ARE R/O TUMBAGI,
TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586212.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
RAMESH
MATHAPATI 1. SRI GOVINDAPPA S/O RAJAPPA MARDIMANI,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O PATTEPUR, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586212.
(OWNER OF CRUISER JEEP VEHICLE,
BEARING NO.KA-17/B-0540)
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
SANGAM BUILDING,
S.S.FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANURADHA M DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:424-DB
MFA No. 202261 of 2022
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
27.06.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT -
VIII, MUDDEBIHAL, IN MVC NO. 55/2016 AND AWARD THE
COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE ORIGINAL CLAIM
PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Smt.Ratna Shivayogimath learned counsel for
the appellants as well as Smt.Anuradha Desai learned
counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Notice to
Respondent No.1 stood dispensed with.
2. This is a claimants' appeal. The claimants i.e.,
appellants herein who are parents of the deceased
Vijayakumar (hereinafter be referred to as 'deceased' for
brevity) filed an application claiming compensation of
Rs.32,00,000/- with 18% interest p.a. The Tribunal through
the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.4,83,600/- as
compensation and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal
is preferred.
3. Arguing in respect of the merits of the matter,
learned counsel for the appellants contends that the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:424-DB
tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-
per month which is grossly low. Learned counsel submits
that the deceased was working as a mason was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month and was contributing his entire
income towards the maintenance of the appellants herein
but without taking the said income into consideration, the
tribunal without there being any basis has taken the income
of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month.
4. In this regard, the learned counsel for the second
respondent-Insurance Company though stated that the
decision of the tribunal is valid, failed to state as to how the
income can be considered to be Rs.3,000/- per month.
When the impugned order is gone through, this Court finds
that only because the deceased was suffering with certain
disability to his right hand, the tribunal had taken the
income of the deceased notionally as Rs.3,000/- per month.
5. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged
about 22 years by the date of the accident. Also it is not in
dispute that the deceased was working as mason by the date
NC: 2024:KHC-K:424-DB
of the accident. Therefore, the tribunal having considered
the occupation of the deceased, ought to have taken the
notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month,
the accident having occured in the year 2015. In case the
income of the deceased is thus taken to be Rs.8,000/- per
month and 40% of future prospects are added as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported
in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the monthly income of the deceased
comes to Rs.11,200/-. The claimants are none other than
the parents of the deceased. Therefore, in the light of the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Verma (Smt) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another, reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases
121, 50% of the income of the deceased has to be deducted
towards the personal and living expenses which the
deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive.
Thus, the contribution of the deceased per month towards
his parents comes to Rs.5,600/-. Thus the annual
contribution comes to Rs.67,200/- (Rs.5,600/- x 12) and the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:424-DB
appropriate multiplier 18 if applied, the loss of dependency
comes to Rs.12,09,600/-, On adding Rs.70,000/- in all
under conventional heads, the total amount which can be
awarded as compensation would be Rs.12,79,600/-. The
tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,83,600/- only as
compensation. The enhancement thus should be
Rs.7,96,000/-. Thus, in the light of foregoing discussions,
the following;
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The amount awarded as compensation by
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muddebihal
through orders in MVC 55/2016 is enhanced
by Rs.7,96,000/-.
(iii) The enhanced amount shall carry interest @
6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit.
(iv) Respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall
deposit the enhanced compensation amount
within a period of eight weeks from today.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:424-DB
(v) The apportionment by the tribunal remains
undisturbed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MSR
CT: CS
