Karnataka High Court

Vasanthi Madivalthi vs Jeevan Shetty on 26 July, 2024

Author: K.Natarajan

Bench: K.Natarajan

                                                     -1-
                                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:29500
                                                               MFA No. 3855 of 2021




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                                  DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
                                                    BEFORE
                                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
                           MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3855 OF 2021 (MV-D)

                      BETWEEN:
                      1.     VASANTHI MADIVALTHI
                             AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
                             W/O LATE BHASKARA MADIVALA

                      2.     VIJAYA LAKSHMI
                             AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
                             W/O RAMESH MADIVALA

                      3.     JANARDHANA
                             AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
                             S/O LATE BHASKARA MADIVALA

                      4.     GOVARDHAN
                             AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
                             S/O LATE BHASKARA MADIVALA

                             ALL ARE RESIDING AT H.NO.2-147A
                             MATHASHRI KUKKUNDI
Digitally signed by          ALANAGARU, PERDOOR POST
MARIGANGAIAH                 PERDOOR VILLAGE
PREMAKUMARI
                             UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                                                               ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA
                      (BY SRI.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY.H., ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
                      1.     JEEVAN SHETTY
                             AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
                             S/O LATE BHOJA SHETTY
                             R/O CLASS I PWD CONTRACTOR BHOOMIKA
                             52 HEROOR VILLAGE
                             BRAHMAVARA TALUK
                             UDUPI DISTRICT-576213
                               -2-
                                              NC: 2024:KHC:29500
                                          MFA No. 3855 of 2021




2.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
     RELIANCE INDIA GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
     DIVISIONAL OFFICE
     MAXIMUS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
     4TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD
     HAMPANAKATTA
     MANGALURU-575 001
                                                  ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.H.S.LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    V/O DATED 15.12.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH.)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 02.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 716/2019 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT,
UDUPI,  PARTLY   ALLOWING    THE   CLAIM  PETITION  FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN


                     ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under

Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for

short, 'Act'), seeking enhancement of the compensation

awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi

(Concurrent Charge) (for short, 'Tribunal') in its judgment

and award in MVC.No.716/2019 dated 02.03.2021.

NC: 2024:KHC:29500

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the parties. Perused the material on record.

3. The case of the appellants is that they have

filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking

compensation of Rs.24,31,000/- for death of the deceased

Bhaskara Madivala.

4. It is alleged that on 10.03.2019 at about 11.00

a.m., when the deceased was riding the motorbike bearing

registration No.KA-20-H-4771 from Perdoor side towards

Karje and when he reached in front of the house of

Mr.Praveen, one Tipper vehicle bearing registration No.

KA-20-AA-2599 came from opposite direction and dashed

to the motorbike of the deceased due to which, he

sustained injuries and died in the hospital. Hence, the

claimants have claimed compensation under various

heads.

5. The respondent No.1 - owner of the vehicle was

placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed statement of

NC: 2024:KHC:29500

objections by denying the rash and negligent driving, age,

occupation and income of the deceased.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal had

framed three issues and the claimants have examined

claimant No.1 as PW1 also one more witnesses as PW2

and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to Ex.P19. On

the other hand, respondent No.2 has not chosen to lead

any defense evidence.

7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel

appearing for the parties, the Tribunal awarded a

compensation of Rs.9,46,291/- on various heads as under:

Sl.

                   Heads                         Calculation
No.
 i      Monthly income                            Rs.10,000/-
        10% of (i) above to be added       (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.1,000/-
  ii
        towards future prospects                = Rs.11,000/-)
        Deduction of ½ of income as
                                           Rs.11,000/- - Rs.5,500/-
 iii    personal expenses of       the
                                                = Rs.5,500/-
        deceased
        Compensation after multiplier       Rs.5,500/- X 12 X 11 =
iv
        11 is applied                             7,26,000/-
 v      Towards Loss of estate                    Rs.15,000/-
vi      Towards loss of consortium               Rs.1,60,000/-
vii Towards funeral expenses                      Rs.15,000/-
viii Medical Expenses                             Rs.30,291/-
     Total compensation awarded                 Rs.9,46,291/-

                                         NC: 2024:KHC:29500

8. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal, the claimants are before this Court

seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has seriously

contended that the Tribunal committed an error in

considering the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per

month, even though he was a Mason and was earning

Rs.20,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the

Tribunal also committed error in taking 50% of the income

towards personal expenditure of the deceased, for a

married person which is against the judgments of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SARLA VERMA (SMT.)

AND OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

AND ANOTHER (2009)6 SCC 121 and NATIONAL

INSURANCE CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND

OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC 5157] Hence, the prayed for

enhancing the compensation.

NC: 2024:KHC:29500

10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2

Insurance Company supported the judgment of the

Tribunal.

11. Considering the arguments of the learned

counsel appearing for the parties and on perusing the

records, the only question that arises for my consideration

is:

"Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? If so, to what extent?"

12. As per the records, the accident in question is

not in dispute and no appeal is filed by the respondents

questioning the liability, hence only the question of

quantum of compensation has to be assessed by this

Court.

13. The Tribunal considered the income of the

deceased only at Rs.10,000/- per month, even though it

was claimed Rs.20,000/- per month. Even in the Legal

Services Authority chart, normally for the accident

NC: 2024:KHC:29500

occurred in the year 2019, the notional income of the

deceased shall be considered at Rs.14,000/- per month.

Therefore, monthly income of the deceased assessed at

Rs.10,000/- by the Tribunal is not correct. As per the

PRANAY SETHI (supra), 10% of the income shall be added

towards future prospects. Then, the notional income of the

deceased would be Rs.15,400/- p.m.

(Rs.14,000 x 10% = Rs.1,400/-.

Rs.14,000+1,400=Rs.15,400/-. )

14. The Tribunal has also committed an error in

deducting 50% towards the personal expenditure of the

deceased. When the deceased was a married person and

claimant Nos.2 to 4 are children, 1/3rd i.e., Rs.5,133/-

shall be deducted towards his personal expenditure

which would amount to Rs.10,266/- p.m. (Rs.15,400/- -

Rs.5,133/- = Rs.10,266/-). The appropriate multiplier to

be adopted is 11. Hence, the claimants are entitled to loss

of dependency in a sum of Rs.13,55,112/-. (Rs.10,266 x

12 x 11).

NC: 2024:KHC:29500

15. As per the decision of the Honb'le Apex Court in

MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v/s NANU

RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS (Civil

Appeal No.9581/2018), the Tribunal has rightly

awarded a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of

consortium to all the claimants. In all other respects, the

Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which warrants

no interference by this Court. The amount awarded

towards loss of estate and funeral expenses is retained.

Hence, the claimants are entitled to total compensation as

follows:

Sl.

                  Heads                         Calculation
No.
 i      Monthly income                           Rs.14,000/-
        10% of (i) above to be added      (Rs.14,000/- + Rs.1,400/-
  ii
        towards future prospects               = Rs.15,400/-)
        Deduction of 1/3 of income as
                                            Rs.15,400/- x 1/3 =
 iii    personal expenses of       the
                                          Rs.5,133/- = Rs.10,266/-
        deceased
        Compensation after multiplier      Rs.10,266/- X 12 X 11 =
iv
        11 is applied                            13,55,112/-
 v      Towards Loss of estate                   Rs.15,000/-
vi      Towards loss of consortium              Rs.1,60,000/-
vii Towards funeral expenses                     Rs.15,000/-
viii Medical Expenses                            Rs.30,291/-
     Total compensation awarded                Rs.15,75,403/-

                                             NC: 2024:KHC:29500

16. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The Appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The judgment and award dated 02.03.2021,

passed by the learned Additional Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal and Principal

Senior Civil Judge. Udupi (Concurrent

Charge) in MVC.No.716/2019, is modified to

the extent that the compensation awarded

at Rs.9,46,291/- is enhanced, thus fixing

the total compensation at Rs.15,75,500/-

(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Seventy Five

Thousand Five Hundred only) with interest

at the rate of 6% p.a.

(iii) Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is

directed to deposit the awarded amount,

along with the interest within sixty days

from today.

(iv) The apportionment, as ordered by the

Tribunal is retained.

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:29500

Draw modified award accordingly.