Karnataka High Court
Kumara vs Omkareshwara on 2 July, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB
MFA No. 1016 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.1016 OF 2022(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. KUMARA
S/O. LATE DODDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
2. MEGHANA K.,
D/O. KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NISARGA NILAYA,
RAJA KEMPEGOWDA EXTENSION,
CANAL ROAD, CHANNAPATNA
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA PARVEEN PERMANANT ADDRESS:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BYRAPATNA VILLGE
KARNATAKA MALUR HOBLI,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. OMKARESHWARA,
S/O GANGADHARAIAH,
MAJOR BY AGE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB
MFA No. 1016 of 2022
RESIDING AT NO. 23,
3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN
JNANAJYOTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560056.
2. THE UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
6TH FLOOR,KRUSHI BHVANA
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VC);
R1- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH
V/O. DATED 11.02.2022)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2021 PASSED IN
MVC NO.457/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATNA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATION, THIS DAY,
DR. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by
the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Channapatna,
in MVC No.457/2017 dated 01.09.2021.
NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB
2. 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.
3. On the ground that the son of appellant No.1 died
in a road traffic accident and that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondent No.1,
the appellants moved an application claiming compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned
order awarded a sum of Rs.18,23,200/- as compensation.
Dissatisfied with the amount awarded as compensation, the
present appeal is preferred.
4. The matrix of the case as could be perceived from
the material available on record is that on 03.09.2017 at about
7.30 p.m. while the deceased Shashank was proceeding on the
motor cycle as a the pillion rider, the rider being one Manoj R.
towards Honganooru from Channapatna, when they were 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 Manoj R. and Shashank
NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB
K. fell down. Shashank died on the spot due to injuries to his
head and Monoj R. lost his life during the course of treatment.
The first appellant is the father of the deceased Shashank and
second appellant is his sister. Mother i.e., claimant No.2 died
during the course of proceedings before the Tribunal.
5. As per the version of the appellants, the deceased
Shashank was studying 4th year B.E. at Dayananda Sagar
College and further by giving tuition to students he was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal which dealt with the
matter, took the notional income of the deceased Shashank as
Rs.11,000/- per month. Sri.Gopala Krishna who argued the
matter representing the appellants contends that the deceased
Shashank would have completed his B.E. Degree very soon and
might have earned lot of amount and would have contributed
the same towards the welfare of the appellants. Learned
counsel states that the Tribunal therefore erred in taking the
notional income of the deceased as Rs.11,000/- per month. The
learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of
compensation by increasing the notional income of the
deceased Shashank.
NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 submits that no proof is produced with regard to the
actual earnings of the deceased Shashank by giving tuitions.
Learned counsel also states that even the deceased Shashank
has not completed his B.E. Degree and therefore, the Tribunal
has rightly took the notional income of Rs.11,000/- per month.
Though the learned counsel for the second respondent
has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Narmadi Bai Vs. Triupati Arolu and others reported
in 2023 ACJ 1207 and contended that the notional income has
to be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, in the said case, the
Court dealt with a matter where the accident occurred in the
year 2010. In the case on hand the accident occurred in the
year 2017. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the decision
relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is more
appropriate.
7. It is not in dispute that the deceased Shashank was
pursuing his B.E. Degree course by the date of accident.
Exs.P22 and P23 establishes the said fact. However, it is very
difficult to estimate in exact terms the earnings of the deceased
Shashank has he been alive. Learned counsel for the appellants
NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB
during the course of his arguments relying upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basanti Devi Vs.
Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
reported in LAWS(SC)-2021-12-119 submits that taking the
notional income at Rs.11,000/- per month is erroneous. In the
said case, dealing with a situation where a bachelor of
engineering in computer technology died in a road traffic
accident, the Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed the action of the
Tribunal in considering the income of the deceased as
Rs.20,000/- per month. The Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 5
of the judgment held as follows:-
"5. Having heard the learned counsel
appearing for the respective sides and
considering the fact that the deceased at the time
of death/accident was aged 25 years of age and
was a Bachelor of Engineering in Computer
Technology, we are of the opinion that the
Tribunal rightly considered the income of the
deceased at the time of death at least @ 20,000/-
p.m. The same was not required to be interfered
with by the High Court. The submission on behalf
of the respondent- Insurance Company that as no
documentary evidence was produced and/or laid
in support of the documentary evidence produced
on record that the deceased was earning
Rs. 20,000 per month and therefore the Tribunal
ought not to have assessed the income of the
deceased at Rs.20,000.00 per month is
concerned, assuming that there was no
supporting evidence laid, in that case also
NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB
considering the potentially to earn, as the
deceased was a Bachelor of Engineering in
Computer Technology, his income can safely be
assessed at least at Rs. 20,000.00 per month. As
such we are in complete agreement with the view
taken by the Tribunal. The High Court has
committed a grave error in reducing the
compensation from Rs.30,54,000.00
( Rs. 30,04,000.00) to Rs. 15,82,000.00."
8. In the light of the aforementioned decision which
aptly applies to the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court considers desirable to take the notional income of the
deceased Shashank as Rs.20,000/- per month.
9. It is not in dispute that the deceased Shashank died
at the age of 22 years. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier to
be applied as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sarla Verma's case is '18'. Further, as per the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case, 40% of the
actual earnings is required to be added towards future
prospects. Taking the aforementioned parameters, the loss of
dependency if calculated would be as under:
Description Amount
Rs.
Annual income (20,000x12)
2,40,000.00
Add 40% towards future
3,36,000.00
prospects (2,40,000+40%)
NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB
Deducting 50% of the
actual earnings towards
1,68,000.00
personal and living
expenses (3,36,000 - 50%)
Applying the relevant
30,24,000.00
multiplier '18' (1,68,000x18)
Loss of dependency 30,24,000.00
Together with the said amount, the appellants are
entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The first appellant is
entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. Thus,
the compensation which the appellants are entitled to is as under:
Sl. Description Amount
No. Rs.
1 Loss of dependency
30,24,000.00
2 Funeral expenses 15,000.00
3 Loss of estate
15,000.00
4 Filial consortium to first
appellant 40,000.00
Total Compensation 30,94,000.00
10. The Tribunal through the impugned order has
awarded a sum of Rs.18,23,200/- as compensation. Thus, the
enhancement would be to a tune of Rs.12,70,800/-.
NC: 2024:KHC:24784-DB
11. In the light of the foregoing discussion the following
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation granted by the Additional Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Channapatna, through orders in MVC
No.457/2017 dated 01.09.2021 is enhanced by Rs.12,70,800/-.
(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) The apportionment made by the Tribunal remains
undisturbed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM,
