Karnataka High Court
Sri. Anil Shetty vs Sri. Devananda Shetty on 28 June, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24191
MFA No. 8430 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8430 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. ANIL SHETTY
S/O LATE DOMBA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT 2-140, NEAR ASHWATHAPURA TEMPLE
BADAGA MIJARU VILLAGE AND POST,
MANGALORE TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 266.
2. SMT. KAMALA SHETTY
W/O SRI. ANIL SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT 2-140, IN FRONT OF ASHWATHAPURA TEMPLE
BADAGA MIJARU, MANGALORE TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 266.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SRI. DEVANANDA SHETTY
W/O SRI. VENKAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR: M/S PARTNER DIX SHIPPING COMPANY,
N.M.C. COMPLEX, BEACH ROAD,
PANAMBOOR, NEW MANGALORE,
MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 007.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
MANGALORE BRANCH, MANGALORE
D.K.DISTRICT - 575 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24191
MFA No. 8430 of 2019
3. SRI. SHAHID
S/O MR. ABDUL HAMEED SAHEBM
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT DOOR NO. 6-160, BLOCK NO.5,
NELLIGUDDE, MIYYAR VILLAGE
KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
HEAD OFFICE-III,
E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA
SEETHAPURA, JAIPURA
RAJASTHAN STATE - 302 022.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.V. PRAKASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4;
SRI RAJU BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.
264/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT,
KARKALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal, filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
challenges the award and judgment dated June 28, 2018, passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (AMACT) Karkala in MVC No. 264/2013.
2. The appeal was heard, admitted, and with the consent of
the learned counsel for the parties, it was taken up for final disposal.
NC: 2024:KHC:24191
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
they are designated in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
4. There is no dispute regarding the death of the deceased,
Athish Shetty, in a road traffic accident that occurred on April 23, 2012,
due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the offending
lorries bearing registration numbers KA-20-4830 and KA-19-B-8775. The
liability of the insurers of both lorries is also undisputed. The sole issue
for consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal at Rs. 12,44,000/- is just and reasonable, or does it
call for enhancement?"
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
perusing the judgment and award of the Tribunal, I am of the view that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable; it
is on the lower side and hence requires enhancement.
6. The deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of his
death in the accident, as evidenced by the post-mortem report (Ex.P-9).
The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, in their evidence,
categorically stated that the deceased was working as a helper in an
automobile garage and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, contributing
Rs.10,000/- to his family. The employer of the deceased was examined
and corroborated this by stating that the deceased was paid Rs.1,500/-
per day.
7. It is further alleged that the claimants had two sons, both of
whom met with unnatural deaths, leaving them without any legal heirs to
look after them.
NC: 2024:KHC:24191
8. The claimants have thus lost their earning son at their old
age. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the claimants
are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.50,000/-.
9. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.12,94,000/- as against the Rs.12,44,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal.
10. The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal are modified to the extent stated above. The
claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.50,000/- with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until the date
of actual realization.
11. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
additional compensation amount with interest within two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
12. The Tribunal, while releasing the remaining amount, is also
directed to issue the fixed deposit slips to enable the claimants to
withdraw the deposit amount upon its maturity without approaching the
Tribunal again. The Bank is directed to release the fixed deposit amount
without insisting on any further order from the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HR
