Karnataka High Court
Prakash Shetty vs Indira M Naik on 31 July, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30315
MFA No. 670 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 670 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. PRAKASH SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE GOPALA SHETTY,
2. ANASOOYA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
W/O PRAKASH SHETTY,
3. MASTER PRAKHYATH SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
4. KUMARI PRATHEEKA,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,
APPELLANT NO.3 AND 4 ARE MINORS
Digitally REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND/
signed by MOTHER ANASOOYA SHETTY.
YAMUNA K L
Location: ALL ARE RESIDING AT 3-79,
High Court of
Karnataka KAMBALAKODI HOUSE,
KALLYA POST AND VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK - 574 104.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI AKSHAYA K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. INDIRA M. NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30315
MFA No. 670 of 2021
W/O MAHABALESHWARA NAIK,
R/AT 'SATVIK', KUNTALPADI,
KARKALA KASBA VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK - 574 104.
2. N. MAHABALESHWARA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O B.R. NAIK,
R/AT 'SATVIK', KUNTALPADI,
KARKALA KASBA VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK - 574 104.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
LIBERTY GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
POLICY SERVICING OFFICE: 4-1-85/21,
SHOP NO.203 AND 4-1-85/25,
SHOP NO.207, 2 ND FLOOR,
INLAND AVENUE, M.G.ROAD,
KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE - 575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 AND R2 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 22.11.2023)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.296/2019 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT,
KARKALA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellants-claimants
challenging the judgment and award dated 22.10.2019
NC: 2024:KHC:30315
passed in MVC.No.296/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge and AMACT, Karkala (for short 'the tribunal'). This
appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and
meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per
their status before the Tribunal.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material placed before the Court.
4. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of
Rs.15,49,800/- with interest at 8% per annum and
directed the respondent - Insurance Company to pay the
compensation.
5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel
for the appellants that the income of the deceased
assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the
compensation awarded under different heads is not in
accordance with the material on record. The Tribunal has
failed to award loss of consortium to the appellants and
NC: 2024:KHC:30315
the same may be awarded. Therefore, he seeks to allow
the appeal and consequently enhance the compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the
respondent - Insurance Company contends that the
Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation
under all heads, in accordance with the material evidence,
both oral and documentary and the same does not call for
interference.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material on record.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the
claimants have produced the documents as per Ex.P1 to
Ex.P25, out of which Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 are the police records,
which clearly depict registration of the FIR and filing of the
charge sheet against driver of the offending car and same
has not been challenged or controverted. Therefore, the
NC: 2024:KHC:30315
Tribunal rightly attributed the negligence against driver of
the offending car.
9. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and
income of the deceased, no material is placed before the
Court with regard to proof of income. In the absence of
the same, the Tribunal has taken the income of the
deceased to be Rs.9,000/- per month, whereas the Legal
Services Authority chart prescribes the notional income of
Rs.12,500/- per month for the accident of the year 2018.
Accordingly, Rs.12,500/- is taken as income in the present
case. The Tribunal rightly added 40% towards future
prospects and deducted 50% towards personal and living
expenses, which does not call for interference. The
deceased was aged 22 years as on the date of accident
and the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at '18',
which does not call for interference. Therefore, the
claimants would be entitled to the compensation of
Rs.18,90,000/- (Rs.12,500/- + 40% = Rs.17,500/- -
NC: 2024:KHC:30315
50% = Rs.8750/- x 12 x 18) towards loss of dependency
as against Rs.13,60,800/- awarded by the tribunal.
10. Towards medical expenses, Rs.58,998/- is
awarded by the Tribunal on the basis of actual bills
produced by the claimants, which does not call for
interference and the same is retained.
11. The tribunal awarded Rs.80,000/- towards love
and affection. As there are four dependents, each would
be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- as per the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases
680. Therefore, under the head loss of consortium, the
claimants are entitled for Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x
4) along with 10% escalation towards three block period,
which would be Rs.1,76,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- + 10%).
12. The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and
NC: 2024:KHC:30315
Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance, which are on the higher
side. This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses, in all, Rs.30,000/- is awarded. However, as per
the aforesaid decision, 10% escalation for one block period
on the same is awarded under this head, which would
come to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- + 10%).
13. In view of the above, the claimants would be
entitled to total compensation of Rs.21,57,998/- as
against Rs.15,49,800/- awarded by the Tribunal, as
mentioned in the table below:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency 18,90,000-00
Loss of consortium 1,76,000-00
Loss of estate and funeral expenses 33,000-00
Medical treatment of deceased 58,998-00
TOTAL 21,57,998-00
14. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.
NC: 2024:KHC:30315
ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated
22.10.2019 passed by the Tribunal in MVC
No.296/2019, is modified.
iii) The appellants/claimants would be entitled to
total compensation of Rs.21,57,998/- as
against Rs.15,49,800/- awarded by the
Tribunal along with interest at 8% per annum.
iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be
paid with interest at 6% per annum by the
respondent - Insurance Company within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this judgment.
v) The compensation amount shall be released in
favour of the appellants-claimants as per the
terms of the Tribunal by Electronic transfer to
the claimants upon furnishing the required
Bank details/upon proper identification.
vi) The enhanced compensation would be
Rs.6,08,198/-. Out of the said enhanced
amount, the Tribunal shall disburse
Rs.2,08,198/- in favour of claimant No.1-
father, Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of claimant
No.2-mother, Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of
claimant No.3-brother and Rs.1,00,000/- in
favour of claimant No.4-sister.
NC: 2024:KHC:30315
vii) The amount so awarded to the minor shall be
kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank
as ordered by the Tribunal.
viii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by
the Tribunal shall stand intact.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
CPN
CT: BHK
