Karnataka High Court
Sharanabasappa And Anr vs Moulali And Anr on 26 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5403
MFA No. 201201 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201201 OF 2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SHARANABASAPPA S/O BASAVARAJ BIRADAR
AGE: 35 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. SMT. LAXMI W/O SHARANABASAPPA BIRADAR
AGE: 29 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
BOTH ARE R/O. HIPPARGA,
TQ. BASAVKALYAN DIST. BIDAR
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHIVASHANKAR H. MANUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
KHAJAAMEEN L 1. MOULALI S/O RUKUMSAB
MALAGHAN
Location: HIGH AGE: MAJOR OCC: BUSINESS,
COURT OF R/O. SANNUR VILLAGE
KARNATAKA
TQ. & DIST. GULBARGA-585101.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
BHARTI AXA GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD,
S.B. COLLEGE ROAD, GULBARGA-585101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 28.05.2019 NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5403
MFA No. 201201 of 2018
THIS MFA FILED IS UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V.
ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2018 PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALABURAGI, IN MVC.NO.265/2015.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 03.07.2024, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
This appeal is by the claimant against the judgment
and award passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge
and Member, MACT, Kalaburagi in MVC.No.265/2015
dated 02.01.2018 for enhancement of compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5403
02. The parties will be referred to as per their ranks
before the Trial Court for sake of convenience.
03. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.06.2014
around 06.00 p.m. the deceased - Mallikarjun was
standing by the side of the road; he met with an accident
due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-32-EE-4163 by its rider. As a result of which,
the said deceased - Mallikarjun aged about 05 years
sustained fatal injuries and on the way to the Hospital, he
died.
04. It is further cases of the claimants that the date
of birth of the deceased was 28.03.2009 and was aged
about 05 years at the time of accident. He was studying in
LKG and he was brilliant student, he was only son of the
claimants. Due to the death of said Mallikarjun, the
claimants have lost their love and affection. With these
reasons, they prayed to award the compensation of
Rs.51,00,000/-.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5403
05. The respondent No.2 denied the contents of the
claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim
petition.
06. From the rival contentions of both the parties,
the Tribunal had framed the necessary issues for
determination.
07. The claimants to prove their case examined
PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 7. The respondents have
not led any evidence.
08. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and
appreciating the evidence available on record had awarded
the compensation of Rs.3,75,000/-.
09. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels
for both the parties.
10. The learned counsel for the claimants would
submit that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
MFA.No.640/2012 (MV) in the case of Smt. Saritha vs.
A.V. Kumar and others, decided on 04.03.2014,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5403
wherein the minor girl aged about 04 years had died in the
accident, this Court had awarded the compensation of
Rs.5,50,000/-. The learned counsel has relied on the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan
Gopal and another vs. Lala and others1. He has also
relied on the judgment on the produced by the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 in the case of Meena
Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and
others, in SLP. (Civil) No.5345/2019 dated
13.10.2022. The learned counsel for the claimants relying
on the said judgments, submitted that in the case of
Meena Devi, the Hon'ble Apex Court, considering its
earlier judgments held that as per schedule -II, notional
income of a minor for non-earning member has taken at
Rs.15,000/- by the amended Act of 1994. Due to inflation,
reduction of value of the rupees, it has taken income of a
non-earning member could be considered as Rs.30,000/-
per annum. On the basis of the age of the parents, applied
multiplier at 15 and enhanced the amount of
(2014) 1 SCC 244
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5403
compensation. In this case the accident had taken place
during the year 2004, nearly after 10 years from the date
of accident as referred to the case of Kishan Gopal.
Therefore, due to the inflation as well as drastic reduction
on the money value income it could be taken at double the
amount assessed in the case of Kishan Gopal and the
income could be taken as Rs.60,000/- per annum in the
case of death of a minor.
11. The learned counsel has further submitted that
in the case of M/s. Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited vs. H. Mallika Bee and others, in
CMA.No.1625/2020 and CMP.No.11960/2020, the
High Court of Madras, assessed the compensation by
considering as the boy was earning who was aged about
15 years and taken the income as Rs.3,500/- per month.
The High Court of Madras has also observed that the
minor is a non-earning member, therefore, question of
spending money towards personal expenses, do not arises.
Therefore, there cannot be deduction towards personal
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5403
expenses. Accordingly, for the death of a boy aged about
15 years, the compensation was awarded at
Rs.11,69,000/- was reduced to Rs.7,45,000/-.
12. Considering the sad facts and circumstances,
the just and reasonable amount of compensation is to be
awarded in the present case.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent -
insurer had submitted that the in the case of Smt.
Saritha, referred supra, the boy was 04 years. This Court
awarded the compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-, relying on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Kishan Gopal. Normally, the depending upon the age of
the minor this Court time and again awarded the
compensation relying on the Kishan Gopal's case. He
further submits that in the case of Meena Devi as
referred supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered all its
previous judgments and awarded the compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- by the judgment dated 30.10.2022. In the
case of Kishan Gopal, the boy met with an accident and
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5403
died who was aged about 10 years and as per the facts of
that case, the said boy was assisting the parents in their
business. Considering the said facts, the Hon'ble Apex
Court considered the notional income as Rs.30,000/- per
annum. That is not applicable to the facts of the present
case.
14. He has further submitted that only on the
ground of decreasing in the value of money or inflation,
the notional income cannot be increased. It is uncertain in
the case of minor regarding the future prospects.
Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the
claimants is not acceptable and at the most this Court may
follow the Meena Devi's case as referred supra and pass
suitable orders in this regard. With these reasons prayed
to dismiss the appeal.
15. It is not in dispute that the minor boy aged
below 05 years sustained injuries in the vehicle accident
and he died. He was studying in LKG. In case of death, the
minor assessment of the compensation is a difficult task,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5403
because he is a non-earning member of the family,
multiplier could be considered only after certain age. As
per the earlier schedule-II (under Section 163(A) of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988) it would start from the age of 15
years. Due to the mortality rate during the childhood, it is
difficult to assess the life span of a minor that too below
the age of 05 years, during which period immunity to
resist of the diseases are less.
16. The below the age of 05 years, a child
completely or partially depending upon its parents to do
daily its pursuits.
17. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Smt. Saritha, as referred supra, observed that in the
case of Kishan Gopal, the compensation was assessed at
Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the child who was aged
about 10 years. In the case of Smt. Saritha, referred
above, a child about 04 years died in the motor vehicle
accident. The Coordinate Bench of this Court was of the
opinion that the age of the deceased child is not material
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5403
whether it was of 04 years or 10 years, the compensation
shall be paid as held in the case of Kishan Gopal,
otherwise, it would hit under Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. Accordingly, global compensation of
Rs.5,50,000/- was awarded in the said case with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum.
18. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Chetana and others vs. Babuji M and others2, made a
distinction between two groups. One is child another is
adolescent, as per the Child and Adolescent Act, 1986. In
that case, the deceased was aged about 17 years and his
notional income was taken at the rate of Rs.10,250/- and
multiplier taken at 16 as per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and
others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another3
and awarded the compensation of Rs.16,99,800/-.
2021 (1) KLJ 249 (DB)
AIR 2009 SC 3104
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5403
19. The learned counsel for the claimants has relied
upon the judgment of High Court of Madras in the case of
H. Mallika Bee as referred supra and submits that the
learned Single Judge, of Madras High Court considering
the earlier law rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court,
calculated the compensation considering the age of the
earning member, assessed the notional income as
Rs.42,000/- per annum and applied multiplier at 15 for the
death of the child of 13 years and in all awarded the
compensation of Rs.7,45,000/-.
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kurvan
Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and another vs. Shyam Kishore
Murm and another4, wherein the child who was aged
about 07 years died and accident taken place in the year
2004, the notional income was taken as Rs.25,000/- per
annum, applied multiplier as 15 and assessed loss of
dependency as Rs.3,75,000/- and awarded Rs.55,000/-
towards conventional heads and total compensation of
Rs.4,20,000/- was awarded.
(2022) 1 SCC 317
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5403
21. In the case of Kishan Gopal, for the death of
the child who was aged about 10 years, the notional
income of the deceased was taken as Rs.30,000/- and the
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded.
22. The submission of the learned counsel for the
claimants that in the case of Kishan Gopal, the accident
had taken place during the year 2004 and in the present
case, the accident had taken place during the year 2014.
Due to inflation the cast of rupees became less. Therefore,
the income could be taken as the double the amount of
notional income assessed in the case of Kishan Gopal and
the income could be taken at Rs.60,000/- per annum. The
said submission cannot be considered to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, for the reasons that the
deceased was aged below 05 years as on the date of the
accident. He was said to be studying in LKG, therefore, on
that basis also his future prospects cannot be presumed.
Considering the case of Meena Devi, which is applicable
to the facts of the present case.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5403
23. It is deemed appropriate to award the global
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on all heads as assessed
in the case of Meena Devi referred supra.
24. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation at Rs.1,25,000/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of its realization.
25. For the above said reasons, I proceed to pass
the following;
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the
I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT,
Kalaburagi in MVC.No.265/2015 dated 02.01.2018
is modified;
A) The claimants are entitled for enhancement
of compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with
interest on the enhanced amount of
compensation at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till its realization.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5403
iii. The respondent No.2 - insurance company shall
deposit the said amount with interest within a
period of 02 months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
iv. The order pertaining to apportionment, deposit
and release of the amount, passed by the Tribunal
is not disturbed.
The registry is directed to send the copy of this
judgment to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
KJJ
CT:PK
