Karnataka High Court

Sri Lokantha vs Sri Sampangi on 5 March, 2024

Author: Jyoti Mulimani

Bench: Jyoti Mulimani

                                                 -1-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC:8839
                                                       MFA No. 1492 of 2015




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

                                            BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1492 OF 2015(MV-D)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.     SRI. LOKANTHA
                          S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA @ DODDAPPAIAH,
                          AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

                   2.     SMT. SARITHA
                          W/O MUNIRAJ,
                          D/O LOKANATH,
                          AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

                   3.     SMT. KAVITHA @ LEELA
                          W/O RAGHU,
                          D/O LOKANATH,
                          AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

                   4.     KUMARI ANITHA
                          D/O LOKANATH,
Digitally signed by       AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: HIGH      5.    KUMARI MALA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                 D/O LOKANATH,
                          AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

                          ALL ARE RESIDING AT
                          C/O A.S.VASUREDDY,
                          NO.26, LAKSHMI LAYOUT,
                          DEVASANDRA, K.R.PURAM,
                          BANGALORE - 560 036.
                                                               ...APPELLANTS
                   (BY SRI. SREENIVASULU REDDY.S., ADVOCATE)
                            -2-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:8839
                                    MFA No. 1492 of 2015




AND:

1.   SRI. SAMPANGI
     S/O GOPALAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
     R/AT MANCHANDAHALLI VILLAGE,
     KOLAR TALUK,
     KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.

2.   BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     K.N.V.COMPELX, 4TH CROSS,
     VIDYANAGAR, B.H.ROAD,
     TUMKUR-572 103.

3.   SRI. R.LOKESH REDDY,
     S/O RAMA REDDY,
     R/AT NO. 125/1, KAVYASHREE NILAYA,
     HONGASANDRA MAIN ROAD,
     GARVEBHAVI PALYA,
     HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 068.

4.  ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
    ZENTH HOUSE,
    KESHAVRAO KHADE MARG,
    MAHALAKSHMI, MUMBAI-400 034.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
( R1 AND R3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
      BY SRI. C.R.RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR
      SRI. B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
      SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 11.09.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.2654/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XX
ADDITIONAL   SMALL  CAUSE   JUDGE, MEMBER,     MACT,
BANGALORE.

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                      -3-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC:8839
                                                   MFA No. 1492 of 2015




                              JUDGMENT

Sri.Sreenivasulu Reddy.S., learned counsel for the

appellants, Sri.C.R.Ravishankar., learned counsel on behalf of

Sri.Pradeep., learned counsel for respondent No.2 and

Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy., learned counsel for respondent No.4

have appeared in person.

2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on

28.07.2015. A perusal of the office note depicts that

respondents 1 and 3 are served and unrepresented. They have

neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the

case as party in person.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be

referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.

4. The claimants contended that they are the

dependants of deceased Smt.Parvathamma. It is contended

that on the 14th day of December 2008 at about 11:00 a.m.,

Smt.Parvathamma was traveling as a passenger in a Auto

bearing Reg. No.KA-07-7944 to go to her native Village from

K.Mallasandra Village to Ammannalu. When the auto reached

near Ragupathi Agrahara Village, the driver of the auto drove

the same in a rash and negligent manner by overtaking a cycle

NC: 2024:KHC:8839

and lost control and fell into the ditch on the side of the road.

Due to the impact, Smt.Parvathamma., fell down and sustained

severe injuries all over the body. Immediately she was shifted

to Jallappa Hospital. They contended that Smt.Parvathamma

was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)

per month by doing agriculture and daily farm. Contending that

they are entitled for compensation, they fled claim petition

seeking compensation before the Tribunal.

In response to the notice, respondents 1 and 3 did not

appear and they placed ex-parte. Respondents 2 and 4

appeared through their counsel and filed their separate

statements of objections. Among other grounds respondents

prayed for dismissal of the petition against them.

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed

issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The

Tribunal vide Judgment dated:11.09.2014 allowed the claim

petition in part. It is this Judgment that is called into question

in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the

Memorandum of appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants and respondents

2 & 4 have urged several contentions.

NC: 2024:KHC:8839

Learned counsel for the appellants in presenting his

arguments vehemently contended that the Tribunal has erred

in awarding meagre compensation. He argued by saying that

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires

enhancement. Counsel therefore, submits that the appeal may

be allowed.

Learned counsel for respondents 2 & 4 justified the

Judgment and award of the Tribunal. They submits that the

appeal is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective

parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records

with utmost care.

6. The point that would arise for consideration is

whether the Claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation?

7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require

reiteration. The Claimants appeal is one for enhancement of

compensation and modification of the judgment. The grounds

urged in the present appeal is that the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal is meager.

NC: 2024:KHC:8839

It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded compensation

of Rs.3,51,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty One Thousand only)

towards Loss of dependency. It is contended that the deceased

was earning Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per

month by doing Agriculture and Dairy Farm. However, there is

no proof of income. In the absence of any proof of income, the

chart prepared by the Legal Service Authority must be taken

into consideration.

As per the chart, the salary of the deceased must be

taken as Rs.4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred only)

per month. The age of the deceased was 46 years as on the

date of accident, hence the multiplier 13 is to be adopted.

Hence, the amount towards the loss of dependency is as under:

CALCULATION OF LOSS OF DEPENDENCY Future prospects:

It is taken into consideration at 25% as per chart because the age of deceased is between 40 to 50.

4,500 X 25% = 1,125

4,500 + 1,125 = 5,625

5,625 divided by 1/3 = 1,875

5,625 - 1,875 = 3,750 3750 x 12 x 13 =5,85,000/- Rs.5,85,000/-

NC: 2024:KHC:8839

In the present case, the deceased left behind her

Husband and four daughters. Hence, they are entitled to

compensation under the head "Loss of consortium" as under:

40,000 X 5 = Rs.2,00,000/-

This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.15,000/-

(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards Funeral and obsequies

ceremony as against Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).

It is noticed that the Tribunal has not awarded

compensation towards loss of estate. Therefore, this Court

deems it proper to award Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen

Thousand only) towards loss of estate.

8. Accordingly, this Court re-determines the

compensation as under:-

1. Loss of dependency Rs.5,85,000 Rs.5,85,000/-

2. Loss of consortium 2,00,000 Rs.2,00,000/-

3. Funeral expenses. 10,000 + 5,000 Rs.15,000/-

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

Total: Rs.8,15,000/-

(Less) Compensation awarded by the - Rs.4,11,000/-

Tribunal:

Enhanced compensation awarded by Rs.4,04,000/-

this Court:

NC: 2024:KHC:8839

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant time, this

Court deems it appropriate to award interest at the rate of 6%

per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the

date of claim petition till realization. Hence, respondents 2 & 4

are equally liable to pay the enhanced amount at the rate of

6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from

the date of claim petition till realization.

9. Hence, the following:

ORDER

1. The Miscellaneous First appeal is

allowed and the Judgment dated:11.09.2014

passed by the Court of MACT, X Addl. Small Causes

Judge, Bangalore, (SCCH22) in M.V.C

No.2654/2009 is modified to the extent stated

hereinabove.

2. The claimants are entitled for the

enhanced compensation of Rs.4,04,000/- (Rupees

Four Lakhs Four Thousand only) with interest at the

NC: 2024:KHC:8839

rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim

petition till the date of realization.

3. Respondents 2 & 4 - Insurance

Companies are jointly and severally directed to

deposit the enhanced compensation amount along

with 6% interest within a period of two months

from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this

Judgment.