Karnataka High Court

Smt Shashikala vs M Sathyanarayana on 29 July, 2024

                                              -1-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC:29802
                                                        MFA No. 4917 of 2015




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                            BEFORE
                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
                  MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4917 OF 2015(MV-D)
                  BETWEEN:

                  1.    SMT. SHASHIKALA
                        W/O LATE MANJUNATH,
                        AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

                  2.    BIJRESH,
                        S/O LATE MANJUNATH,
                        AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

                  3.    M. DEEPAK
                        S/O LATE MANJUNATH,
                        AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

                        ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.7,
                        HULIMAVU, OLD NO.185,
Digitally signed by     NEAR SRIRAM TEMPLE,
PRAJWAL A               BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
Location: HIGH COURT    BANGALORE-560 076
OF KARNATAKA
                                                               ...APPELLANTS
                  (BY SMT. SUNITHA B.H., ADVOCATE FOR
                      SRI. RAJANNA., ADVOCATE)

                  AND:

                        M. SATHYANARAYANA
                        S/O KRISHNA RAO,
                        AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
                        R/AT NO.140, AKSHAYA NIVAS,
                                -2-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:29802
                                         MFA No. 4917 of 2015




     2ND MAIN ROAD,
     PANDURANGA NAGARA,
     BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
     BANGALORE-560 076
                                               ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N BALARAM, ADVOCATE)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.5566/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-4, BANGALORE,
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 T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

                      ORAL JUDGMENT

1. In this appeal, the petitioners have challenged the

judgment and award dated 07.04.2015 passed in

M.V.C.No.5566/2013 on the file of the MACT, Bangalore

('the Tribunal' for short).

2. The appellants were the petitioners and respondents

were the respondents before the Tribunal. For the sake of

convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as

per their status before the Tribunal.

NC: 2024:KHC:29802

3. Brief facts of the case are, on 01.10.2012 at 11.45

p.m. one Manjunath, the deceased, the husband of the 1 st

petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3 was riding the

Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA-51-Q-2674 from

Devarachikkanahalli to Hulimavu, hit by the Car bearing

Registration No.KA-51-N-9616, the deceased fell down and

sustained injuries. He was treated at Fortis Hospital from

01.10.2012 to 04.10.2012 and then at NIMHANS,

Bengaluru, later he succumbed to death in the Hospital.

The petitioners approached the Tribunal seeking

compensation, claim was opposed by the respondent, the

Tribunal by taking evidence and on hearing both the

parties by impugned judgment awarded the following

compensation:-

a. Loss of dependency Rs.4,86,000/-

b. Transportation of dead body Rs. 10,000/-

and funeral expenses

c. Loss of consortium to the 1st Rs. 20,000/-

      petitioner
d.    Loss of estate                Rs. 20,000/-

                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:29802





e.    Cost of medical treatment of Rs.1,01,430/-
      Manjunath before his death
      TOTAL                        Rs.6,37,430/-



Pleading   inadequacy        and      seeking    enhancement      of

compensation, the petitioners have filed this appeal on

various grounds.

4. Heard Smt. Sunitha B.H., learned counsel for

Sri Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioners,

Sri N Balaram, learned counsel for the vehicle.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners

that the deceased Manjunath was doing Real Estate and

allied business and earning Rs.60,000/- to 75,000/- per

month, at the time of accident. The deceased was aged

56 years having three dependents. Two sons are the

students, who were studying at the time of accident.

Though income tax returns were furnished to show the

income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken Rs.6,000/-

per month, which is on the lower side and sought for

enhancement.

NC: 2024:KHC:29802

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the owner of the car

has contended that, there was no negligence on the part

of the driver of the Car, complete negligence was on the

part of the rider of the motor cycle, and he has no liability

to pay any compensation. It is further contended that the

compensation awarded is excess.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the

parties and perused the material on record.

8. The accident in question involving Motor Cycle

bearing registration No.KA-51-Q-2674 and Car bearing

Registration No.KA-51-N-9616, is not in dispute. The

deceased Manjunath was the rider of the Motor Cycle and

the car was not covered with valid insurance. The

contention of the owner of the car that negligence is on

the part of the deceased is not substantiated by placing

any evidence on record. No eye witnesses are examined

NC: 2024:KHC:29802

explaining even the contributory negligence on the part of

the deceased.

9. The Tribunal has rightly held that negligence is on

the part of the car driver, as he was prosecuted by the

Police for the offence under Section 279 and 304A of IPC

as indicated in the charge sheet. The 1st petitioner being

the wife and petitioners 2 and 3 though they are major

sons, they are the students and dependents. Accident is

of the year 2012. Though the petitioners have produced

the income tax returns, the petitioners failed to produce

any income tax returns post the death of the deceased.

The Tribunal has considered the deceased as a person with

no proof of income, taken notional income at Rs.6000/-,

which is on the lower side. A person with no proof of

income would earn Rs.7,000/- in the year 2012. Hence

notional income of the deceased is taken at Rs.7,000/-.

10. In a case of this nature, assessment of compensation

is guided by the Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED vs. PRANAY SETHI AND

NC: 2024:KHC:29802

OTHERS, reported in (2017) 16 SUPREME COURT

CASES 680 and SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS

VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND

ANOTHER reported in (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT

CASES 121.

11. There are three dependents, hence 1/3rd has to be

deducted towards personal expenses. The post mortem

report shows that the deceased was aged 56 years, the

applicable multiplier is '9'. For the age above 50 years

the future prospects will be 10%. Hence the loss of

dependency would come to :-

Rs.7,000/- + Rs.700/- (10%) = Rs.7,700/- - Rs.2,566

(1/3rd) = Rs.5,134/- x 12 x 9 = Rs.5,54,472/-

12. The records shows that deceased was admitted to

Fortis Hospital and then at NIMHANS. He was hospitalized

for five days. Medical bills constitute Rs.1,01,430/- the

same is awarded by the Tribunal, that has to be taken

note of and kept intact.

NC: 2024:KHC:29802

13. Under conventional heads Rs.15,000/- each is

assessed towards funeral expenses and loss of estate.

Loss of consortium to wife and loss of filial love to the

children Rs.40,000/- each is to be awarded. Since the

accident is of the year 2012, in view of PRANAY SETHI's

case cited supra 10% appreciation on conventional heads

is to be considered at Rs.15,000/-. Hence the petitioners

are entitled to compensation as follows:-

1. Loss of dependency Rs. 5,54,472/-

2. Loss of consortium (wife and two Rs. 1,20,000/-

sons)

3. Towards Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-

4. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-

5. 10% appreciation on Rs. 15,000/-

conventional heads TOTAL Rs.7,19,472/-

      Less compensation                 Rs. 6,37,430/-
      awarded by the Tribunal
      Enhanced compensation             Rs.   82,042/-

                                               NC: 2024:KHC:29802

14. It is the just compensation the petitioners are entitled

to in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence

appeal merits consideration, in the result, the following :-

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award is modified.

(iii) The petitioners would be entitled to enhanced

compensation of Rs.82,042/- together with interest

at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit.