Karnataka High Court
Smt Sudha G vs Omkareshwara on 2 July, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25192-DB
MFA No. 1044 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1044 OF 2022(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUDHA G.
S/O LATE RAMESH,
NOW AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
2. MEGHANA R,
S/O LATE RAMESH,
NOW AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
3. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE HANUMAIAH,
NOW AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA PARVEEN
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF NO. 6541/3037, 6TH CROSS,
KARNATAKA RAJA KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT,
CHANNEL ROAD, CHANNAPATNA TOWN,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
RATHNAPURA VILLAGE,
ANGARAGANGE POST,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25192-DB
MFA No. 1044 of 2022
AND:
1. OMKARESHWARA
S/O GANGADHARAIAH
MAJOR BY AGE,
RESIDING AT NO. 23,
3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
JNANAJYOTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560056.
2. THE UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
5TH FLOOR,
KRUSHI BHAVANA,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001
REP: BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T.,ADVOCATE FOR R2(VC);
R1- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH
V/O. DATED 18.12.2023)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2021 PASSED IN
MVC NO.456/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, CHANNAPATTANA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING NHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATION,
THIS DAY, DR. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:25192-DB
MFA No. 1044 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Gopal Krishna N., learned counsel for the
appellants as well as Sri.Mohan Kumar T., learned counsel for
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.
2. Dissatisfied with the amount that is awarded as
compensation by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Channapatna, through orders in MVC No.456/2017
dated 01.09.2021 the claimants preferred the present appeal.
3. The factual matrix of the case as could be culled out
from the material available on record is that on 03.09.2017 the
deceased Manoj R (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased' for
brevity) being the rider of the motor cycle bearing Registration
No.KA.05 KA.4611 was proceeding along with his friend
Sri.Shashak K. as a pillion rider. When they reached near
Neelakantanahalli Cross, Channapatna-Sathanoor Road, an
Indica Car bearing Registration No.KA.41 N.7862 which was
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed
against the motor cycle, due to which the deceased and
Shashank fell down. While Shashank died on the spot due to
NC: 2024:KHC:25192-DB
head injuries, Monoj R. who sustained grievous injuries lost his
life during the course of treatment.
4. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased
Manoj R. was working as Junior Assistant at BESCOM,
Bengaluru and was earning Rs.26,904/- per month by the date
of accident.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
Tribunal has not taken into consideration the gross salary of the
deceased. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal deducted
the amounts which were paid by the deceased toward savings
and held that the income of the deceased for the purpose of
calculating compensation should be taken as Rs.25,476/- per
month.
6. A perusal of the contents of Ex.P11 which is not in
dispute reveals that the deceased was earning Rs.28,798/- per
month. Thus, the annual earnings of the deceased comes to
Rs.3,45,576/-.
7. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits
that at the relevant period, the non-taxable income is
NC: 2024:KHC:25192-DB
Rs.2,50,000/-. Thus, the taxable income of the deceased comes
to Rs.95,576/-. Both the learned counsel have submitted that
5% is the income tax for the said amount of Rs.95,576/-.
Therefore income tax payable comes to Rs.4,778.8 per annum
which is rounded off to Rs.4,779.00. Along with the said
amount, as per the contents of Ex.P11, Rs.200/- per month i.e.
Rs.2,400/- per annum is to be deducted toward professional
tax. Thus, deducting Rs.4,779.00 towards income tax and
Rs.2,400/- towards professional tax, the annual earnings of the
deceased comes to Rs.3,38,397/-.
8. Having taking the annual earnings of the deceased
as Rs.3,38,397/-, now the Court proceeds with calculating the
compensation which the appellants are entitled under the head
loss of dependency is:
Description Amount
Rs.
Annual income
3,38,397.00
Add 40% of the earnings
towards future
4,73,755.80
prospects(3,38,397+40%)
Deducting 50% of
the earnings towards
2,36,877.90
personal and living
expenses(4,73,755-50%)
NC: 2024:KHC:25192-DB
Applying the relevant
42,63,802.20
multiplier '18'(2,36,877x18)
loss of dependency comes to
Together with the said amount, the appellants are entitled
to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards
funeral expenses. The first appellant is also entitled to
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. Thus, the amount
which the appellants are entitled to would be as under:
Sl. Description Amount
No. Rs.
1 Loss of dependency
42,63,802.20
2 Funeral expenses 15,000.00
3 Loss of estate
15,000.00
4 Filial consortium to first
appellant 40,000.00
Total Compensation 43,33,802.20
9. The Tribunal through the impugned order has
awarded a sum of Rs.42,67,112.00 as compensation. Thus, the
enhancement would be Rs.66,690.20 rounded to Rs.66,700/-.
With the submission the deduction towards personal
expenses should be 1/3rd so far as this case is concerned and
not 50%, learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt.Sarla
NC: 2024:KHC:25192-DB
Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104.
10. In the case on hand, the first claimant is mother of
the deceased, the second claimant is the sister of the deceased
and the 3rd claimant is the grand mother of the deceased.
Learned counsel states that the grand mother of the deceased
was also residing with the deceased and was depending upon
him. Even in the decision that is relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellants, nowhere the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that the grand parents are to be termed to be dependents
of the deceased. That apart, there is no material available with
regard to show that the 3rd appellant i.e. the grand mother of
the deceased had no other issues except the first appellant
herein and that she was solely depending upon the earnings of
the deceased. Having considered these facts, this Court is of
the view that as the deceased died in the capacity of the
bachelor, 50% of the earnings of the deceased are required to
be deducted towards personal and living expenses.
11. Thus, in the light of the foregoing discussion the
following
NC: 2024:KHC:25192-DB
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Additional
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Channapatna, through orders
in MVC No.456/2017 dated 01.09.2021 is enhanced by
Rs.66,700/-.
(iii) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate
of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
(iv) The second respondent is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
(v) On such deposit, the first appellant is entitled to
withdraw the entire enhanced amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AP
